My goodness! Their critiques of your statements about evolution—such as with the chimp-human genomic similarities—border on the comical and pathological lying. Even with my past experiences with the Discovery Institute, I was stunned.
Here’s one of my favorites:
First, the high chimp-human genomic similarity was not predicted by common ancestry. No such prediction was made and no such prediction is required by common ancestry. Common ancestry would be just fine with very different levels of similarity from 98-99 percent. In fact, this high similarity makes no sense under evolution, for several of the reasons given above. Swamidass’s claim that this evidence is a stunning confirmation of common ancestry is utterly at odds with the science. It is in stark contrast to the scientific facts."
I found lots of Arguments from Personal Incredulity and an apparent assumption that simply restating their denials with repetitive sentences would somehow add to the weight of their argument.
I only skimmed but in that entire diatribe I noticed no mention of phylogenetic trees, except for one claim that those genome-based phylogenetic trees totally contradicted the phylogenetic trees published prior to genomic maps were available for comparison. [Even as a layperson with no professional background in genomics, I know that to be a lie.]
Now you know why I have to watch my blood pressure when dealing with this brand of ID advocates.
The most remarkable part of the dialogue was when Vincent and I (and Glen Williamson) demonstrated objectively that VTG1 absolutely aligns to the syntenic region of chimps/humans with very very high statistical significance (e values of about 10^-70). Ann agrees with us now, I think, but if you only read ENV it would be very hard to pick this up.
Ann, by the way, is a very nice person. I do not think she is intentionally deceptive. For some reason, it is hard for many in the ID movement to separate the design argument from their suspicion of common descent. And, as it is for everyone, it is hard to admit in public when they are wrong (same here for me).
The reason I shy away from public debate, however, is that their argument is actually rhetorically quite strong. I’m much more concerned with the science than the rhetoric, which is why I usually avoid debate.
…I thought specifically of the published prediction concerning about chromosome fusion accounting for the fewer number of chromosomes in the human genome versus chimpanzee genome. Wasn’t that published around seven years prior to the mapping of the genomes and discovery of the fused chromosome #2? They SURELY have to know that. Right?
And to leave the article as is on their website and to fail to correct the misstatement (even if it was inadvertent), how is that not a lie in result if not by original intent?
I don’t understand how anyone can say with a straight face that “no such prediction is required by common ancestry.” Moreover, I’m bothered by the obsession with exact percentage when the greater issue is the phylogenetic tree relationships and the fact that they confirm the relative genetic distances one would expect with common dissent.
In this matter, I’m reminded of my own experience coming out of the Young Earth Creationist world. I thought it impossible that the Christian men I respected could be misrepresenting or even lying about the basic facts in evidence. I see that same presupposition stated in a lot of YEC defenses of their positions. I can empathize: Who would think it possible that Christian leaders could take an ends-justifies-the-means approach to honesty and accuracy? I was willing to believe that the “evil atheist scientists” were lying about the facts but I thought it impossible that God would even allow my Christian heroes of creation science to hold to wrong beliefs. (Yes. I was very naive.)
In a public setting, do you know how Discovery Institute people would justify the obviously erroneous claims made in the example I cited? (Of course, I can give leeway for “innocent human error” versus deliberate dishonesty. But errors of any sort require correction after the fact—or else they become deliberate dishonesty.)
If there are any defenders or fans of the Discovery Institute reading this thread, I would greatly appreciate an explanation or defense concerning the example from EvolutionNews I quoted above. I don’t at all enjoy seeing such misrepresentations of the science and I so want to attribute such errors to carelessness or bureaucratic disorganization. But is it not easy to see why critics of the Discovery Institute like to call them “The Dishonesty Institute”?
And that is why I would be greatly relieved to see a reasonable explanation if not actual defense of the error.
West argues that ID is being more open-minded and committed to open dialogue by including dissenting voices like Hunter and Gauger. They officially distance themselves from any specific statements by Hunter and Gauger, so as to keep their hands clean of their mistakes. Still, they embrace them as members of the community, to demonstrate how close minded us mainstream scientists are. Once again, say what you will, this is very strong rhetorically. I admire them for their political savvy here.
I think, honestly, that my decision to argue exclusively for common descent (and avoiding the term evolution and the argument against ID) was very difficult for them. It brought them into public conflict with VJ Torley at Uncommon Descent. Because I refused to argue against design (which I agree with any ways), common descent became a very difficult wedge issue for them to manage. Or so it seems to me.
The way I summarize my position remains inconvenient for them:
“I believe God created us; He designed us all. However, whether evolution is true or false, He created us to look like we share a common ancestor with apes. And, unfortunately, none of the scientific arguments for design are convincing using the rules of mainstream science.”
The Urim and Thummim certainly appear to have that function.
And even though scientists don’t know which radioisotope atom is going to decay next, for a radioisotope sample, the half-life can be expected to be very predictable. So whenever people complain about “randomness”, I point out that randomness is often extremely predictable.
Of course, we could go into issues of stochastic phenomena and distinguishing what is truly random from that which is simple unknown by the observer.
Yes. Good observations. It is amazing how much fear surrounds the issue. It is as if some people think that any element of randomness in something makes it evil and therefore not something that God would create.
This matter termed “random” continues to cause argument/discussion. We need to accept that “random” is constantly used when discussing evolution. The “three-pronged”, approach cannot be valid in such discussions - it is easy and obvious to see that “random” as used in discussions on evolution is related to physical observations in bio-systems. Thus it is the meaning (undirected, unpredictable) as found in such discussions.
If anyone wants to argue for God, I suggest he/she tell us of their personal revelation from God who has given another meaning to that purpose - we know that the Apostles used a throw of the dice because they had gone through every step in making a decision, and found themselves unable to decide between two candidate - then they prayed that God would show them who should be an Apostle. This an appeal to God and an act of faith, not a definition of “not random to God”.
If someone feels they should ask God what is and is not random, they are welcomed to do this and we may listen to their “message from God” - until then, random is a term used to discuss ToE and people who use this term are very clear what they mean.
For the most part I agree with you. I could clarify minor points here and there, but that is beside the point. E.g. when I say Third Way is not controversial, I mean that comparatively with ID. Really, they are in just a rebranding campaign. If you look at the debates on this amongst scientists, they agree largely on the science, but just have minor disagreements about terminology and emphasis.
For me, the debate about the mechanism is entirely beside the point when you consider the extremely clear evidence for common descent of man with the great apes. This evidence is extremely clear, the mechanisms here are actually very well understood, and this is center of the public debate. If one accepts or rejects human evolution, none of the rest of it matters really. The rest follows accordingly.
No one really cares if there was a “bush” back in microbial evolution. That is not controversial. Any atheist who argues about that is just plain confused. I suspect even YEC can accept that. For many people, even if we could prove God involvement, the common descent of man would still remain an anathema. The evolution of humans, therefore, is really ground zero in the debate, and also where the evidence is the strongest. This is why I focus on anthropogeny.
ANd to be clear, there is a long history of scientists getting the “mechanism” wrong, but still being given “credit.” Kepler is a great example. His math was largely right about heliocentrism and ellipses, however he (1) thought attractive force decayed with 1/r instead of 1/r^2 and (2) thought it was magnetism (not gravity) that drew heavenly bodies together. History does not care. He got the overall pattern right, and subsequent scientist correctly refined his theory. We are still refining it to this day.
Evolution is very similar. Darwin got the basic theory right (as far as we can tell): common descent. He did not argue for universal common descent (he was open to multiple origins of life). He did not even know what DNA and protein is. He certainly did not understand population genetics and horizontal gene transfer. Ultimately, it did not matter. No one cares. Common descent, it turns out, is extremely well supported in recent evolutionary history (the last 100mya), and particularly well supported in human evolution.
In fact, even if ID was to successfully make its case in science (which I doubt), this would just be a modification to the mechanism. It would not unsettle something as strongly supported as human evolution.
Well I agree with you there. Notice all my quotes to neutral theory, Third Way, etc. At the same time, the ID movement really does tend to misrepresent this. Even if there is debate about the mechanism, there is no debate about the common descent of man. This, very precisely, is the definition of evolution. Therefore, there is no debate currently about “evolution” within science in regards to the crux of the theological controversy: anthropogeny.
Any way @Eddie, I think we are actually very close here. That is nice and refreshing to see. Given all our tussles, I think it is really impressive that you found your way to theistic evolution. Can you tell me a bit more about that journey? How did you, especially as “conservative” biblical scholar, find your way there?
Joshua, I am intrigued by this statement (and also your belief that ToE is the most successful theory of all science - or words to that effect). How do you deal with the opinions of other experts who say, for example, the time postulated for the human brain to develop, and the attributes of humans, cannot be explained (away?) by the notions of common descent. Correct me if I have erred, but these opinions come from well recognised scientists in biology. Surely you cannot dismiss this as a “mechanistic” matter.
Again, I feel that I must restate that I am not a biologist, and I simply read what I can from those whose expertise is in biology.