Since the vast majority of Christian scientists also reject YEC, your argument would appear to be flawed.
3 Likes
The issue here is that the data does fit the evolutionary framework really, really well.
I am a geneticist, and I am familiar with the work done by Sanford and Axe. Itâs bad science. If you want to discuss a specific example then I would urge you to start a new thread with the link to the material. A quick search didnât find any threads on Genetic Entropy, so it might be worth a discussion here.
2 Likes
If Sanfordâs âgenetic entropyâ model were true, most insects died out in Adamâs lifetime. Heâs claiming that the mutation rate builds up problems to the point that youâre in trouble after the number of generations that young-earthers want to claim that humans have had. But humanity is not experiencing any genetic crisis - weâre still having plenty of babies, and most organisms have been through far more generations in the past 6000 years without having genetic problems.
It is true that âprovingâ anything is difficult. But young-earth explanations are characteristically piecemeal excuses to ignore the evidence, with no coherent framework. Itâs like saying âthe dog ate my homework, I couldnât do the homework because I had ebola yesterday, and there was no homework - the teacher and class are gaslighting me.â Not only are each of the excuses bad, but they contradict each other. A valid young-earth model must actually exist with specific characteristics, and then be corrected or abandoned if its predictions do not hold up. The current practice of creation science and ID is focused on swaying public opinion, not on actually developing a scientific model, which is why they are pretty good at fooling the public and at insulting and offending scientists. A similar situation prevails in politics - all about saying how bad your opponents are and failing to give any evidence that youâre an improvement over them.
8 Likes
There is a serious problem with your narrative. An insect that has only a few days or weeks between generations doesnât accumulate the same number of mutations per generation as an organism that has 30 years between generations. Either way there are 6000 years of mutations for each species.
And as I understand it, one of the major goals of BioLogos is to go to churches and seminaries, etc., to sway public opinion. Apparently there is nothing wrong with BioLogos doing that. Whatâs good for the goose is good for the gander.
Here is one difference.
BioLogos is not presenting a new scientific theory. They are showing how the scientific consensus is correct in their science and how this science does not equal atheism but can be equally applied to a Christian worldview. They are focused on swaying beliefs away from atheism and war against science towards Jesus. They are focused on showing harmony between real science and valid theological interpretations.
Other places, like AIG, are not trying to present real science. They are presenting pseudoscience and trying to convince people to reject real science and replace it with bad science to help support bad biblical hermeneutics.
Itâs like this.
Gravity is widely accepted by essentially everyone. Newtonâs Law of Universal Gravitation and Einsteinâs Theory of General Relativity is basically accepted as truth to everyone. BioLogos is saying that as Christians we can still be Christians and believe in gravity. That just because the Bible states God determines our time and place, and sets boundaries just not mean itâs a supernatural force keeping us glued to the surface of earth. Creationist however would push a concept like gravity is false and that the Bible says God sets the boundaries snd that itâs God using angels to hold people to the surface of earth and then try to use science to express it.
I understand this notion is silly, and that YEC creationist and a evolutionary creationist both accept gravity. But the theory of evolution is just as solid as gravity.
2 Likes
I often feel like YEC creationist donât account for all the mutations that donât make it. They donât seem to consider how recessive genes can become dominate genes based on the environment. They donât seem to account for âgene poolingâ within different divergent lineages of the same species. Itâs not that every animal of a species equally evolves the same mutations at the same rate.
You can have a bird species and have one of these birds families ( genetic lineage and not taxonomic clade ) that has slightly longer talons. Another has slightly longer beaks. Another has slightly brighter colors. One could become dominate in the NW, another in Texas and another in the NE. But they migrate towards Mexico and mate and in Mexico you find birds of that species with traits from each family. Each of these traits could have taken a long time to dominate that family. But Iâll see YEC looking at each trait in the bird and saying they all adapted this fast. When it actually took each set adapting in each regional family and then even longer for the mating of these three groups to come together as the dominate group on the place they migrated to and ectâŚ
In general YEC misrepresents science.
Indeed! It is amazing how the materialist worldview of YEC will come up with excuses for ignoring all the data God is sending us from every corner and scale of the universe. Just because they want to us to believe we are all clockwork machines made by a great watchmaker, an evil Demi-urge who tortures children with genetic aberrations, they will search for scientific evidence out of context to support their Gnostic mechanistic materialism.
But there is great news, God is the good shepherd who has sent His Son to the earth, not only to bring back His lost sheep into a loving relationship with Him, but to show us a life of the spirit beyond our material existence by the Sonâs own resurrection to a spiritual body which is powerful, imperishable, glorious, and not of dust but of heaven, so that we can follow Him to inherit the kingdom of God.
I give God thanks for the scientific theory of evolution, for this liberation from the clockwork materialism of intelligent design lets this poor scientist understand how evil can exist in the world of an all-powerful creator, whose only desire is to for us to have life more abundantly. The YEC materialists can fabricate all the lies they want to justify condemning all scientists to eternal damnation, but we have faith that the truth will be victorious in the end.
1 Like
Hi Craig,
I appreciate that you are working hard to think about the issues being discussed. However, biologists would point out that you are probably not familiar with the genetic dynamics behind @paleomalacologistâs statement. I am aware of two things that you seem unfamiliar with: (1) the difference between germ cells and somatic cells, and (2) the mathematics of drift and coalescence in population genetics.
Germ vs. Somatic Cells
In a sexually reproducing population, the frequency of mutations depends on how often germ cells divide, not on how often all the cells in a body divide. Now think of how a baby girl is born with all of the ova she will ever have in her body. Since the DNA no longer replicates in the ova, no more mutations are generated in the DNA the girl will pass on eventually to her children when she becomes a mother.
While the girl is growing up, the insect populations around her will reproduce through dozens of generations. Clearly, the mutation velocity will be faster among insects than among humans.
Mathematics of population genetics
I am not an expert on this topic, so I will quote from the relevant Wikipedia article:
For a diploid population of size N and neutral mutation rate {\mu }
, the initial frequency of a novel mutation is simply 1/(2 N ), and the number of new mutations per generation is {2N\mu }
. Since the fixation rate is the rate of novel neutral mutation multiplied by their probability of fixation, the overall fixation rate is {\displaystyle 2N\mu \times {\frac {1}{2N}}=\mu }
. Thus, the rate of fixation for a mutation not subject to selection is simply the rate of introduction of such mutations.
Assuming a similar mutation rate between insects and humans, the insects will fix more mutations over time because the insects have more generations.
This may seem a little bit counterintuitive, in the same way that the quantum double-slit experiment seems counterintuitive and curved space-time seems counterintuitive and the twin paradox in special relativity seems counterintuitive.
So my friend Craig: Does this help you understand a little better how @paleomalacologistâs statement was, in fact, very much correct?
Best,
Chris
EDIT: Removed stray adverb
2 Likes
Yes, that helpfully explains further. Sanfordâs claim is that a certain number of generations accumulates so many harmful mutations that the species cannot continue. Species with shorter generation times do accumulate mutations much faster in terms of years. The only mutations that actually get inherited are those in reproductive cells that successfully produce young. Thus, thereâs quite a lot of weeding out that takes place (reproductive cells with too major problems in the DNA wonât successfully fertilize in the first place, major problems in the DNA will lead to the fertilized egg not developing, etc.), which is ignored in the young-earth misuse of mutation rates. The cells destined to become egg or sperm cells generally go through only relatively few rounds of copying per generation, whether the generation is long or short. Much of the mutation occurs as problems in the copying and distributing of DNA during cell division, so the inherited mutation rate per generation is much more consistent across different types of organism than Craig guessed.
There is significant variation both between organisms (not related to any particularly obvious reason) and from place to place in the genome in mutation rates as well. Itâs not a simple pattern. (Incidentally, old-earth evolutionary molecular clock calculations tend to neglect this as well.) But the basic claim of Sanford, that species are running into genetic trouble on a few thousand year timescale due to accumulated mutations, is not true. We do see species and populations having genetic trouble, but this is because of small population size (e.g., Florida panthers). Under a flood geology model, all species should have had far greater genetic trouble much sooner due to the extreme small population size on the ark.
The problem is not having a goal of influencing public opinion; the problem is when that is the top goal, without a commitment to accuracy. BioLogos seeks to publicize information that reflects serious scientific investigation and biblical theology. Regrettably, the standard approach of popular young-earth and ID (and new atheist, etc.) promotion is to push their slogans, without concern for the quality of the argument nor for developing and improving a coherent position. Biblically, we should be doing everything in a way that glorifies God - we cannot lose sight of honesty and integrity in how we witness.
5 Likes
I did try to investigate the scientific âresearchâ but I did not find any. The links kept taking me back to AIG articles not scientific research articles. If you can link some scientific research I will take a look. I hope you understand that I will not simply let you tell me what some research says any more than I would let you tell me what the Bible says. I will read both for myself and draw my conclusions.
The other responses here suggest that instead of a scientific research paper what we really have is an argument in an AIG article. But I am not likely to accept the premises of such an argument.
Why isnât some combination of Christianity and Evolution a novel theory? It would seem to me that there is no room for theistic involvement within the theory of evolution; and likewise, there is no room for evolution within the narrative of creation presented to us by Scripture. I would therefore think that any attempt to create a hybrid between the two would require ânew scientific theoryâ â which is what we see being promoted by Biologos.
Why isnât some combination of Christianity and Meteorology a novel theory? Same principle.
Just like there is no room for theistic involvement in any other branch of science. Why is evolution (or actually biology) different?
Perhaps for the same reason that Scripture does not explain the process of nuclear fission the powers the sun that God created.
Nobody that I am aware of is attempting to create a hybrid. Just a way to accept both.
3 Likes
Well you are wrong.
BioLogos seems to be open to several possibilities. The majority of active members in the threads are not employees of BioLogos and those that are at multiple times state that their particular interpretation of theology is their own.
But beyond that this is the main error with your statement. Then science, and that includes evolution, is the same for atheists as it is for theists. Theistic evolutionists/ theist who believes in evolution / evolutionary creationist and ect⌠they all believe in the same science. The way I believe that humans are primates and evolved to this point is the same way as Dawkins. There is no scientific difference between how a theist or atheist views evolution, biology, geology, and ect⌠there is not a supernatural element to how I view evolution.
So when someone uses a term like evolutionary creationist their focus is not on a new hybrid scientific theory between something like evolution and ID. They are showing how you can be a Christian and still accept authentic science. Why?
Because nothing in science demands you to reject religion.
Because the Bible does not actually teach a anti evolutionary worldview. Instead good biblical hermeneutics and contextual analysis of genesis 1-11 opens up a legitimate non literal interpretation of that story which in returns opens them up to the possibility of accepting real science.
So BioLogos is showing how a Christian can believe in science snd how a scientist can have faith in Christ.
1 Like
If there is one thing that the Bible tells us, it is that our origins are supernatural. And if there is one thing that science tells us, it is that evolution is a fully naturalistic process. If I try to impose the Christian view of supernaturalism upon evolution, I pervert the scientific view; and if I fail to impose the Christian view upon science, I am contradicting the Biblical view. And certainly, if I attempt to find some middle path, I have neither the biblical view nor the scientific view.
The Bible does not teach us that we have a supernatural origins story of how humans got here. The Bible has no literal story about the creation of mankind.
Are you basing that off of places like genesis 1-2?
Yes, of course; but I donât think that is the only passage that refers to our origins has supernatural.
[content removed by moderator]
Well letâs stick to genesis 1-3, and the other verses first. Because when we are discussing things like young earth creationism versus evolutionary creationism we are not in fact discussing science. The actual debate is interpreting scripture.
[content removed by moderators]
I also just wanted to let you know that itâs a ridiculous argument to presume that because someone is not a idiot who believes in pseudoscience that they glorify sin. It would be like if I asked someone who is a YEC based off a haunch if they supported incest.
But back to genesis 1-3 which few verses are you taking to imply a supernatural origins for humans?
Is it the part where God makes a earth golem and brings it to life?
Is it the part where God then has this golem and splits it in half separating its femininity from it and turning that into a woman?
If there is one thing that the whole Bible tells us, it is that we were placed here on Earth for a reason. The Bible tends to ignore the how despite what you think of Genesis 1-3. Just like Genesis tells us why God created the sun and stars but doesnât explain how they work.
If I subscribe to your reasoning, I would also say:
- if there is one thing that science tells us, it is that meteorology is a fully naturalistic process.
- if there is one thing that science tells us, it is that Newtonian mechanics are a fully naturalistic process.
- if there is one thing that science tells us, it is that the relativity that GPS relies on is a fully naturalistic process.
What is a Bible-believing Christian to do? Do I have to choose between
- believing that the weather forecast is worth listening to; vs.
- believing that God sends the rain whenever He wants to?
Or is it possible to believe both?
Do I have to choose between
- believing that gravity explains how the stars and planets move; vs.
- believing that God set the universe in motion and continues to uphold it?
Or is it possible to believe both?
Do I have to choose between
- using my GPS, which implies that I believe in and trust relativity; vs.
- trusting God to guide me by His Holy Spirit every minute of every day?
Or is it possible to believe both?
What you have done, Van, is set up a false dichotomy.
There is nothing about science that insists that God has no role in evolution. Just as there is nothing about science that insists that God has no role in the weather, or in planetary motion, or in electromagnetic radiation that is detected by a GPS device.
You have learned to use a certain hermeneutical approach to reconcile Godâs control of the weather with meteorology. You probably use that same hermeneutical approach to reconcile Godâs creation of the universe with Newtonian and Einsteinian mechanics, and to reconcile Godâs guidance with the use of GPS.
You can use that same hermeneutical approach to reconcile Godâs creation of life with evolution.
Blessings,
Chris
5 Likes