Didn’t we cover this already? BioLogos says it rejects the science of Evolution when defined in a way that excludes God.
Is there more than one person using your @Ashwin_s login? That might explain your inability to maintain continuity in your discussions.
Is there a way in which the science of evolution is defined in a way that includes a theistic God?
It’s defined excluding God as a possibility.
If the theory wasn’t falsifiable then it wouldn’t be refined. The theory changes because parts of it are found to be wrong, and we know that parts of the theory are wrong because IT IS FALSIFIABLE.
Here are 29+ potential falsifications for the theory of evolution:
That’s like saying the idea of erosion has been falsified in geology because there are places on Earth where there is deposition taking place. Natural selection, both positive and negative, still occur in all genomes as well as neutral drift. Finding sections of a genome where junk DNA is accumulating neutral changes does not falsify the claim that sections of the genome are under purifying selection.
You reject the tree of animals, which is the whole point. You don’t accept the evidence that animals descended from a common ancestor through vertical inheritance.
And creationists accept that all eukaryotes, from protists to humans, evolved from the common ancestral pool of eukaryotes that were the result of this hybridization, just as almost all scientists do?
Do you or do you not accept that even all primates share a common ancestor? yes or no?
And what are the mechanisms they propose for the cause of this network?
If you define the actions of God as those which go against natural processes then you will probably end up disproving the existence of God as more evidence accumulates for natural processes.
That is completely false. Science doesn’t exclude any possibility. Science can only include possibilities that are supported by evidence.
No, it’s not. The science of evolution is completely agnostic on the subject of God. Unless you think describing the natural mechanisms underlying a process is the same as saying that nothing but those natural mechanisms can possibly exist.
It’s like saying, when I pray I make physical sound which travels x distance and I definitely don’t see any evidence of God in that range, so praying is pointless. (Disclaimer: I don’t think praying is pointless.) You could probably even design a test to figure out if the sound is being fully absorbed by the expected physical materials in x range, and then get even fancier and repeat it all for the electromagnetic signal of your brainwaves.
Would you honestly expect any of that to tell you anything about the existence of God?
So then why would you insist that if the science of evolution isn’t affirming God, it’s “by definition” excluding God?
The theory of gravity neither includes nor excludes God.
The theory of quantum mechanics (which has a prominent role for randomness) neither includes nor excludes God.
Meteorology (which has a prominent role for randomness) neither includes nor excludes God.
The theory of evolution neither includes nor excludes God.
Grace and peace,
Chris
Since only parts can be falsified. It leaves a core that cannot be falsified.
Common ancestry has been falsified in some cases… and I guess is being refined.However, the refined version seems more general that the original one.
Hereditary change through mutations is being added to by processes such as endosymbiosis, HGTs,ERVs,Gene duplication etc.
So what is the unfalsifiable core. Why retain the name evolution for the new extension? Or has the idea of evolution become so general that it is just a different name for “natural causes”?
If the unfalsifiable core is naturalism, it’s a philosophy. Not a scientific theory.
Ideas cannot be falsified perse. However, if there was a theory that a particular feature in nature is caused by erosion, it can be falsified. Darwins theory is that Natural selection is the creative force behind all the variation we see causing random variations to accumulate in a directional manner and thus shape all the design features observed. That idea has proven to be false.
I accept its very difficult to falsify natural selection as it is not defined well enough to be falsified.
Its a fair question. And the answer is that scientist have consistently said so.
Blockquote
It was Darwin’s greatest accomplishment to show that the complex organization and functionality of living beings can be explained as the result of a natural process—natural selection—without any need to resort to a Creator or other external agent. The origin and adaptations of organisms in their profusion and wondrous variations were thus brought into the realm of science.
i.e, God is not needed as an explanation.
Blockquote
Natural selection sorting out spontaneously arising mutations is a creative process because it causes favorable mutations to combine and accumulate, yielding a great diversity of organisms over eons of time. But there are important features that distinguish the kind of “design” achieved by natural selection, namely the adaptations of organisms, from the kind of design produced by an intelligent designer, an engineer.
i.e The work of natural selection will be different from that of a creator God. Here the scientist is claiming that they can differentiate whether a “design” is made by God or not. They make logical arguments against a designer by trying to show that the “designs” could not have originated from anyones mind.
I have heard christians like @Bill_II in this forum repeat this same argument and suggest that the design is not intelligent… i.e the Designer is dum (either in that he designed wrong or used bad tools)
Blockquote
This is Darwin’s fundamental discovery, that there is a process that is creative although not conscious. And this is the conceptual revolution that Darwin completed: the idea that the design of living organisms can be accounted for as the result of natural processes governed by natural laws. This is nothing if not a fundamental vision that has forever changed how mankind perceives itself and its place in the universe.
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8567#sec-8
What people like @gbrooks9 describe is not evolution in any shape or form as taught by someone like Ayala and most other scientists. It is different in the following points -
Now, we could nitpick on the difference between philosophical materialism and methodological materialism, but this so called difference is absolutely lost in how scientists interpret, present and teach evolution to each other or the general public. Most of these scientists are moved by a fundamental vision.
Its a difference that exists only in the minds of Theistic evolutionists.
@Chris_Falter: we discussed similar stuff.
All the parts can be falsified, as already demonstrated.
Why wouldn’t it be added? That is how nature works, so it is part of the theory.
Evolution is the theory of how organisms change over time. If HGT, ERVs, gene duplications, and the like are evidenced mechanisms that cause change in species over time, then they should be included as part of that theory.
Evolution isn’t a religion. There are no tenets of Evolution that need to be dogmatically defended and held on to. What the evidence shows is what the theory is. Period.
The theory of evolution is the same as every other single theory in science. If you object to the theory of evolution citing natural mechanisms, then you are rejecting the whole of science and the scientific method.
The theory is that the vast bulk of the genomes of animals was inherited through vertical inheritance, and that the differences between species are due to genetic changes that were blind to the fitness of the organism. Those genetic changes were then filtered through natural selection and neutral drift.
All of these parts of the theory are exceedingly testable and falsifiable. Numerous and massive departures from a nested hierarchy would falsify vertical inheritance. Lack of sequence conservation in functional DNA would falsify selection and neutral drift. The pattern of transversions and transitions throughout the genome would falsify the theory that mutagenesis is blind to fitness. All of this is so easily testable.
It wasn’t a discussion at all. You had made the same assertion about the theory of evolution excluding any possibility of God for the n-th time. In response I raised several points about other disciplines of science that use similar methodologies (incorporating randomness) and are often used by atheist apologists.
You clicked the reply button and typed some words. Your words essentially repeated your assertion without addressing any of the points I had made.
I don’t know what our interaction should be called. But I wouldn’t call it a discussion.
Grace and peace,
Chris Falter
I also feel you didn’t get my point.
If that’s what you mean.
Can provide a formal statement to this effect from any source? I would be particularly interested in what is meant by “a vast bulk”… is that a number… an opinion… or an assumption?
When you say genetic changes were blind to fitness… what exactly do you mean? What about epigenetics?.
It’s been falsified extensively in single celled organisms… we have already discussed that…
Functional DNA is defined based on sequence conservation… B that count 8.2% of the human genome would be functional… and your claim would be circular reasoning.
As per ENCODE 80% has some biochemical function… if that is true it would falsify you claim…
So your choice is between circular reasoning and falsification.
I don’t object to natural mechanisms. I object to generalising the theory through refinements and tautologies to the extent that it is the same as saying “change happened through natural means”.
So what exactly is the theory?
Is it “genetic change happens through natural processes”?
All the claims have been falsified.
Nominating this for the “most refreshingly lucid posts” list.
(Not that such a list exists, but if it did, this’d be on it! 
)
I did, but I don’t think you read my post carefully enough.
Your essential point is that a theory has to be open to God’s involvement. It doesn’t have to advocate for it, but it at least has to be open to it.
As far as I can tell, you think that the theory of evolution is not open to God’s involvement because it describes changes as
You summon the writings of some atheist biologists and philosophers in support, because they claim that evolution excludes God’s involvement.
There - are you convinced that I understood you?
Now, will you really listen to what I am saying? You haven’t yet, but it wouldn’t be right for me not to live in hope.
What I am saying is that:
(1) All scientific theories are open to God’s involvement, even the theory of evolution.
1a. Scientific methodology by definition neither excludes nor includes God. Because it does not exclude God by definition, it is open to God’s involvement.
1b. Evolution is built with scientific methodology.
1c. Therefore, evolution is open to God’s involvement
(2) A scientific theory’s incorporation of randomness and explicit lack of direction/telos does not mean that it is not open to God’s involvement.
2a. The scientific definition of randomness is epistemological, not ontological.
2b. Modeling a process with a random, probabilistic component does not exclude God’s involvement.
2c. Modeling a process with a random, probabilistic component does not exclude telos and purpose.
2c1. Other non-random components of the model can indicate direction.
2c2. Software processes that use random walks together with loss functions can achieve a purpose. This demonstrates that a process with a random component (like genetic mutation) and a loss function (like natural selection) can have a designer and a telos. However, the detection of the designer and telos requires stepping outside the model; similarly, detecting the designer and telos of evolution requires stepping outside the realm of scientific methodology into the realm of faith.
2d. The fact that scientific methodologies do not detect purpose/telos does not mean that other methodologies cannot be used to detect purpose/telos.
2d1. The fields of study that are capable of detecting purpose/telos include religion and philosophy.
2d2. Faith can also detect purpose/telos in situations that appear from the “natural” perspective to have none.
(3) Other disciplines of science have theories that exhibit all the features that you think are problems with evolution.
3a. For example, physics propounds theories like quantum mechanics that
3a1. Even though quantum mechanics exhibits everything that you object to in evolution, you accept quantum mechanics.
3a2. Therefore, you should be able to accept the theory of evolution.
3b. Other scientific fields such as meteorology likewise have dominant theories that model stochastic processes with a randomness component and disavowal of direction/telos.
3b1. You nevertheless seem to accept the validity of meteorology.
3b2. Therefore, you should be able to accept the validity of evolution.
(4) The fact that a theory is badly used by some people, even when the people using it badly are among its leading practitioners, does not mean it is wrong.
4a. The theories of physics are badly used by leading practitioners such as Krauss, Hawking, Stenger, and Feynman.
4b. Nevertheless, most Christians including you and me accept the theories of physics without feeling a need to accept the false metaphysical claims of leading practitioners.
4c. Since you and I accept physics theories even though many scientists misuse them for atheistic apologetics, we can do the same with biology theories.
So far, you have not even acknowledged any of the points I have made, much less responded to them.
But I’m still hoping.
Grace and peace,
Chris Falter
It is stunningly audacious of you to state this while being unable to respond to the facts that
I salute your audacity, Ashwin. I would only point out that audacity is not an indicator of argument quality.
Grace and peace,
Chris Falter
“Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not “try” to supply what the organism “needs.””
Understanding Evolution
This definition goes back to the original experiments done in the 1940’s and 50’s by the Lederbergs, Luria, and Delbruck. They found that beneficial mutations occurred at a low rate in environments where the mutations weren’t needed. For example, mutations which confer antibiotic resistance in bacteria occurred in the absence of antibiotics.
I mean that the processes that cause mutations are not influenced by what would be beneficial to the organism in a given environment. Let’s use antibiotic resistance as our example again. A non-random mutation in this case would be a protein that senses antibiotic in the environment and then mutates a specific base in the genome which results in antibiotic resistance. This isn’t what happens. The mechanisms that cause mutations aren’t sensing the presence of antibiotics, nor are they mutating a specific base. Instead, these mechanisms are mutating many bases in the genome, and they aren’t influenced in any meaningful way by the mutations that the organism needs in a given environment.
Horizontal genetic transfer (HGT) is exceedingly rare in eukaryotes which means that the vast bulk of any eukaryotic genome was inherited vertically. This is backed many, many publications. I can dig one up of you want.
But it hasn’t been falsified in eukaryotes.
Functional DNA can also be defined by knockout experiments which is independent of sequence.
ENCODE included junk DNA in their definition of functional. If a stretch of DNA is transcribed into RNA they counted it as functional even if that RNA molecule did not affect the fitness of organism. It’s a bit like saying that a burned out light bulb is functional because it can be used as a paper weight.
Really? You have argued extensively that if evolution occurs through natural mechanisms then that falsifies the existence of God.
I already defined it:
"Evolution is the theory of how organisms change over time. "
Now you are just making stuff up.
No you didn’t understand me. The key to Darwinism is natural selection.
The work of the designer in this process is done by natural seelction not God.
This is why there are arguments against design by God or any intelligence which tries to prove that design in nature does not look ike the work of a mind.
In Darwinism, natural selection is the creator and the design itself is mindless and not particularly good.
This makes God redundant… and takes away his role as creator and designer of life.
This is neither compatible with any kind of theism or with reality.
Grace and peace.
Ashwin.
In solar nebulism, the laws of physics are the creator and the design itself is mindless and not particularly good.
http://www.astro.umass.edu/~myun/teaching/a100_old/solarnebulartheory.html
Again, every theory in science proposes a natural mechanism for the cause of natural phenomena. So why do you single out evolution?
What is the ontological reality of a law?
Laws themselves are approximations of an unknown reality. Probably emergent phenomenon of quantum phenomenon.
How can an approximation create anything?
And I don’t know any physicist who ascribes creative power to gravity. They don’t even understand what it is.so how can they? You are the first guy who mentioned this.The idea is empty.
@Chris_Falter
My point to @Chris_Falter was a theological one about ascribing Glory to God for his creation.
To you, my point remains the same. The natural explanation doesn’t really explain anything. It’s full of circular reasoning and tautology.
If a natural mechanism that actually explains macro evolution is proposed in the future, I wouldaccept it.
The theological problems arise because a wrong mechanism which doesn’t explain what happened or how it happened is being pushed forward. Darwinian processes cannot have created the changes required for macro evolution. I agree with guys like Shapiro in this.Can
Okay then. Let’s try–at least try-- to examine some other scientific theories that can be formulated similarly:
(1) The key to solar nebulism is gravity.
The work of the designer in this process is done by gravity not God.
(2) The key to quantum theory is a set of probability distribution functions.
The work of the designer in this process is done by the probability distribution functions not God.
(3) The key to molecular formation in chemistry is ionic and co-valent bonding.
The work of the designer in this process is done by ionic and covalent bonding not God.
Would you like more examples? Literally thousands more can be provided.
Or can you make an effort to see what I and many others are actually saying?
Yours,
Chris
P.S. I predict that you will in the near future cite the apologetic use of evolution by atheists as a reason to reject evolution…
…even though atheist apologists use many other scientific theories in the same fashion, and you accept those other theories…
…in spite of the fact that the deep contradiction inherent in your position has been pointed out to you many times.
The reason I am predicting this is that it has happened many, many times already. Why would it not happen again?
Well, there is always hope. I mustn’t forget that. Prove me wrong, Ashwin.
P.P.S.
According to plate tectonics, the key to the design of the continents is a set of impersonal geophysical forces.
The work of the designer in this process is done by impersonal geophysical forces not God.
According to geology, the key to the design of geological strata are the impersonal forces of deposition, erosion, and gravity.
The work of the designer in this process is done by impersonal forces of deposition, erosion, and gravity not God.
Ad infinitum…
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.