Im not sure. I havent settled on any particular model. Im simply questioning the currently accepted model which is evolution, as Im not convinced by it. I dont have a problem reconciling it with the Bible (I tend to view the first few chapters of Genesis as non-literal, but rather written primarily as a polemic aginst other NE creation stories), but Im just not convinced it reflects reality. Have you read the recent book ‘Heretic’ for example. It’s a shame this site hasnt produced a review of it - I would genuinely like to see an evolutionist rebuffing it, if they can.
I haven’t read it (nor had ever heard of it till now). It looks to be pretty recent (January of 2018) which is probably why we haven’t seen much reaction yet. It looks pretty interesting. The author: Matti Leisola, is a Christian and a young earth creationist according to his wikipedia page.
Just going on blurbs quoted from it at this ‘goodreads site’ the only quotes given seem to deal with abiogenesis and his critique that it remains completely unexplained. To which I’d reply – well of course! Some scientists close to the field might not be so pessimistic as to say “we’ve got absolutely nothing” in the way of ideas, but I haven’t heard anybody here make claims that we are even remotely close to a “we’ve got it nailed down now” conclusion. It is an open field of exploration. So even if the answer was “we’ve got nothing” – that would do nothing to detract from all the knowledge that we do have for how life develops later. If the author turns out to be one of those who can’t see a difference between abiogenesis and evolution, then so much the worse for his thesis. But my initial reaction (if indeed the quoted blurbs are at all representative of his larger book) would be this: to critique the whole goo-to-zoo-to-you scenario by noting a lack of coherent options in the early “goo” part (abiogenesis) would be similar to someone arguing that we can’t really know the earth goes around the sun, because they haven’t yet fully explained how the big bang started. On that logic, all this ‘heliocentrism’ stuff is just a huge conspiracy because they don’t even know how the universe started! I trust you can see that it just doesn’t follow.
In all fairness to Leisola, he may delve much further into actual evolutionary theory in his book … I hope he does anyway. It looks like he has the credentials that he ought to be able to put forward some interesting insights. As to the part about abiogenesis, though, that part isn’t going to make any new waves except to be another chorus for the existing choir.
[now with edits]
Here’s a link to an impressively large chapter sample!
Below is a small sample of the larger sample!
Isn’t this book, Heretic, pretty focused on the origins of the first living cell?
TABLE OF CONTENTS
This isn’t something many people here know as much about.
If we already have people who think it ordinary that God would be involved in mutations and natural selection, it is even more obvious that God would be involved in creating the very FIRST CELL to use DNA or RNA.
Do you have a second book you would want critiqued?
@Pculbert looks like another typical ID Book. Not written by an evolutionary biologist. Recap Axe’s work, that is unconvincing, and mention Wistar, which they are confused to what actually happened there. Yawn
He covers the cell and evolution in general. But evolution depends on genetics so it is reasonable to look at it from that perspective.
So it would be good if an evolutionist would critique his book. Ive already asked for this, but so far no takers from Biologos.
Are you sure you think this book is that important to you? I could read it… but it doesn’t sound like it’s going to cut me to my heart, you know?
By definition an evolutionary biologist would not write such a book!
Whales did (NOT) evolve
There is a rather detailed critique in the 1 star reviews of the book on Amazon. That review uses 2662 words to say the same thing as the considerably shorter comments above.
My point was people with little or no training in evolutionary biology keep writing these books. Why aren’t FORMER evolutionary biologists writing these books? Who wrote the leading ID book of the OOL? A philosopher and historian. Paleontology? Same person. Though I have heard Gunter Bechly is coming out with something.
Puck’s? I believe he is a biochemist
Since you are urgent about getting this reviewed by evolutionists, why don’t you contact the National Center for Science Education? They have experts in Intelligent Design.
It’s his comments on evolution that I thought Biologos would be interested in refuting.
Why limit yourself to BioLogos? They have limited time and resources. Contact the National Center for Science Education
I’m in the middle of a summer course, and with other things I need and want to be reading as well, so I don’t think I’ll be taking this one in any time soon. But if you have read it, maybe you could share some of the comments you most would like to see addressed? I’m sure many here would chip in with affirmation, interaction, clarification, or refutation … whatever is needed.
I read one quote and it reminds me of what Neil deGrasse Tyson said: “Intelligent Design is a theory of ignorance”
His comments on evolution are nothing new. It’s the same ole arguments that Biologos have touched on numerous times. And why should BioLogos review every ID book? Their mission isn’t really to refute ID but to promote the harmony between faith and science.
Interesting. I’m wondering if you have read the Four Views on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design by Ham, Haarsma, Meyer and Ross? It’s helpful for counterpointing.“Four Views on the Historical Adam” by Barrick (YEC), Lamoureux (EC), C John Collins (OE) and Walton (Archetypal) is more theological.
Also, I wonder if you or anyone else has read the new issue of “Evidence That Demands a Verdict” by McDowell and Son and can comment on their view of the evolution chapter?
If you don’t see a conflict between evolution and religion, as you shouldn’t, why reject it? Perhaps you’re not convinced by it, but you don’t understand the intricacies of the theory either. So, if either way it’s not a problem, why not just accept the conclusion of all the scientists, Christian or otherwise? Don’t you think it’s a bit of a coincidence that the theory you question in specific happens to be evolution?
I also don’t see what you’re not convinced by, either. Where does the theory break down? How do you explain vitellogenin DNA, dysfunctional egg yolk genes in humans that evolutionary theory not only proposes is a remnant of our ancestors, but actually located in the enormous human DNA code by predicting where it would be in humans by looking at bird genes?
“Over the past 28 years, experimental evidence has revealed that family trees based on anatomical features contradict family trees based on molecular similarities, and at many points.”
“Natural selection has never been known to create a significant amount of new genetic information.”
“Heritable mutations are the only way to change the genome of an individual, and extended research on bacteria and other rapidly breeding microscopic life have produced only modest microevolutionary variations within very strict limits.”
“the Cambrian explosion, where numerous new phyla, fundamentally new body plans, appear during a relatively narrow window of geological time - No known chemical, physical or biological phenomenon explains such massive increases in biological information.”
“Evolution needs mutations in genes expressed in the early phases of embryonic development, since its in the early phases that basic body plans and organs are laid down. For evolution to do anything more than tinker with existing species within narrow limits, it has to be able to mutate the fundamentals - body plans, core architecture etc. Such early phase mutations do occur, but heres the catch - those mutations are always harmful or lethal.”