Whales did (NOT) evolve

@Ashwin_s,

I guess you have as much a problem reading your citations as any of us do.

Bechly explicitly rejects common ancestry!:

"Even though, intelligent design theory is in principle compatible with universal common descent and guided evolution, I personally have come to reject common ancestry as naturalistic mode of macroevolution . . .

in favor of a sophisticated version of progressive (Old Earth) special creation in terms of non-random adaptive macromutations in the “womb” of parental organisms (analogous to Schindewolf’s and Goldschmidt’s “hopeful monsters”, recently endorsed by Rieppel 2017, as well as other representatives of saltationism, mutationism and orthogenesis) combined with the instantiation of a new platonic form that preexisted as template in the mind of the designer (“special transformism” sensu Chaberek 2017). "

In fact, he has adopted my favorite form of Old Eartherism - - it is my favorite because no matter how many times I read a description of “progressive (Old Earth) special creation …”
it always makes me think there is a funny punchline at the end of the sentence. And if, for some reason, the writer doesn’t include a punchline, I add one of my own!

Yes he explicitly rejects common ancestry…
But if you told him what you believed… he would agree with it and say what you believe is not common ancestry.(as per his definition).

You may not believe it brooks… what you describe is closer to old earth creationism than evolution.

@Ashwin_s, you are quite amusing. Now you are telling me what you think he would say.

You act like all this can be resolved by turning to the Oxford Dictionary.

What YOU might find surprising is that dictionaries don’t usually go to the trouble of saying “this definition only applies if there is no God”.

Whether you believe it or not, the definition for Common Ancestry doesn’t change whether God uses the principle or not. The question comes down to two (2) possibilities:

[1] Are the existing members of a species ultimately the literal descendants (by birth or parallel process) of another species?

vs.

[2] Are the members of a given species merely descended from one of many, many species created by means of Special Creation, rather than through Evolutionary processes harnessed by God?

So the only thing you object to is vertical inheritance in 100% of situations? I really don’t see how horizontal genetic transfer helps your case at all. Can you explain why HGT falsifies the natural evolution of species and how it supports ID/creationism?

No I just mentioned what he wrote. Perhaps brooks didn’t bother to visit the site and read his full statement.

Let me give an example.The first Eukaryote is believed to have emerged from a hybridisation event of two separate types of prokaryotes (eubacteria and archaebacteria). So eukaryotes don’t have a common ancestor species.
Prokaryote Genes are so jumbled up that you can’t say for sure whether they had a common ancestor species. One understanding is that prokaryotes evolved from a group of species… or that the concept of species itself is fluid among prokaryotes.
This also applies to speciation events related to endosymbiosis or strategic events like the ERV which produced placentas in mammals…
All these are examples of speciation involving more than one species… i.e no one species is a common ancestor. It’s already two or more.
Since we can’t say whether LUCA existed, because of massive LGTs in prokaryotes and common ancestry is violated by any organisms evolved through hybridisation/endosymbiosis/ERVs etc, common ancestry is not universally true as defined above.

Of course, the common reaction of biologists seems to be to shift the goal post and redefine common ancestry.
@glipsnort does exactly that when he says common ancestry is a shared genetic heritage.
This basically makes concepts such as common ancestry unfalsifiable… because of no clear definition and moving goal posts.

Even if we redefine common ancestry to indicate shared genetic histories, we should at least stop short of any intervention from God.

Depends on how you define evolution. Like I said from the beginning, you can’t falsify a philosophical position of naturalism. Common Descent with modification can be falsified and has been for some events like the emergence of eukaryotes.
A new formal definition is required if evolution has to be falsified.
As to support for ID/creationism… one advantage is that biologists will be forced to redefine what they mean by evolution. Perhaps they will avoid tautologies this time and arrive at testable mechanisms.
Any other advantage would depend on empirical findings post such a paradigm shift.

Why can’t his results be used by an anti evolutionist. Why publish if he didn’t want people to read and use his work? This is illogical.
Please address the actual arguments. If your stand is that you will not discuss scientific papers with anyone who believes in ID, it up to you.
Tomorrow an atheist might tell you he doesn’t want to discuss scientific papers with a guy who actually believes in God.

Well are your arguments somebody else’s opinions?

@Ashwin_s

Perhaps I understand things well enough that when someone rejects Item “A”… then some of the the corollaries to “A” are also, by definition, rejected.

You know about “definitional rejection” right?

As for your tired “procedural” treatment of prokaryotes and eukaryotes … again, your analysis is geared towards Atheists. Why are you here? While there are a few atheist types here, they still right from the viewpoint of someone who would support the Christian goals of BioLogos.

You believe God is involved in the jump-start from matter to life… and so do many of us here.

<< yawn >> I hope you are getting paid by the hour…

Because they always get it wrong? It appears Dr. Doolittle is writing from his experience.

I don’t disagree with the paper, just your use of the paper. And based on Dr. Doolittle’s statement you are wrong from the get go. If you don’t agree take it up with him. He is the expert.

More likely by the word.

1 Like

The real argument you seem to be having is natural v. supernatural. So in what way do you think horizontal genetic transfer is supernatural? Or is it natural?

I’m not understanding this. How does horizontal genetic transfer and endosymbiosis falsify common descent and descent with modification?

How does that support ID/creationism if the redefinition includes natural mechanisms?

@Ashwin_s,

I don’t understand that sentence at all. Who are you to delcare that God would or would not be involved?

While you are fussing about what typology should be applied to the very first living things ever … you seem to forget why you are in the swamp.

At some point you were pontificating on why Evolution could not be qualified as requiring the participation of God and you even started dragging in the topic of materialism. Please, once again, see the Mission Statements as published by BioLogos:

[Unlike you, @Ashwin_s, BioLogos is willing to separate Natural from Miraculous]
[6] We believe that God typically sustains the world using faithful, consistent processes that humans describe as “natural laws.” Yet we also affirm that God works outside of natural law in supernatural events, including the miracles described in Scripture. In both natural and supernatural ways, God continues to be directly involved in creation and in human history.

[BioLogos rejects Materialism and Scientism.]
[7] We believe that the methods of science are an important and reliable means to investigate and describe the world God has made. In this, we stand with a long tradition of Christians for whom Christian faith and science are mutually hospitable. Therefore, we reject ideologies such as Materialism and Scientism that claim science is the sole source of knowledge and truth, that science has debunked God and religion, or that the physical world constitutes the whole of reality.

[BioLogos accepts Evolution with Common Descent, but rejects Evolution when defined without purpose.]
[9] We believe that the diversity and interrelation of all life on earth are best explained by the God-ordained process of evolution with common descent. Thus, evolution is not in opposition to God, but a means by which God providentially achieves his purposes. Therefore, we reject ideologies that claim that evolution is a purposeless process or that evolution replaces God.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[content removed by moderator]

When someone wants to reject Evolution because it is in error, but also reject “Corrected Evolution” because it contradicts “the very same scientists that you say are in error” - - there’s not much point in discussing it again and again every 24 hours… regular as a time piece or pendulum…

.
.

.
.
.

.
.
.

You’ve bled me dry, @Ashwin_s. Hope your next victim has more stamina…

I am not getting paid… and i am also wondering why exactly i am wasting my time talking to people like this.

Anyway, i agree with @gbrooks9 … we are going around in circles.
@gbrooks9 : god bless.

So are you saying that Biologos views evolution as a mechanism in which God constantly intervenes to produce a certain goal?

I assume the answer to that question is no. But then I also suspect most evolutionists would reject that understanding of evolution. Youre effectively saying ‘God did it’, not only in designing the mechanisms of evolution (which I could agree with), but actually within the mechanisms themselves, on an ongoing basis.

You might as well argue that God actively ‘drives’ the winds and ‘pushes’ every wave upon the shore, rather than them being the natural consequences of nature following defined laws. If I throw a ball into the air, it comes down again not because of God intervening or being directly involved, but because of gravity. So I can explain such an event without reference to God, and call it ‘natural’. I am still unsure about evolution, as I am about ID, but I have to say if your view is representative of Biologos supporters, Im not really surprised atheist evolutionists mock.

Sorry for being blunt!

Just a quick note from the sidelines to say that “BioLogos” often does not “view” things in any one particular way (BioLogos tends to be fairly “big tent,” as you’ll have seen if you’ve poked around on the site), and also that we unaffiliated, self-selected Forum participants are not necessarily the truest interpreters of those few views that are actually set. For those, you would be best to read the official statements themselves.

But as another fellow random Forum participant, I would say that “intervening” conjures up a sort of unnecessary natural–supernatural dichotomy. What if, instead, natural laws are in fact the evidence of God Himself continually upholding all things (Hebrews 1:3), and those laws appear consistent because He is consistent?

As to “producing a certain goal,” from my years of lurking here I can say that I think a pretty solid majority of (non-atheist) Forum participants do actually believe that God used evolution to produce a certain goal. There are some few folks here with sympathies for Open Theism but I haven’t seen any gung-ho Open Theist evangelists here, and only one memorable blog post by Thomas Jay Oord that leaned in that direction. But there’s a whole lot on here that I don’t read, so maybe I’m missing something…

2 Likes

Thanks. I just think it is rather confusing when on the one hand it seems pro-evolutionists here are using words such as God ‘driving’ basic evolutionary mechanisms. But they basically laugh at ID-proponents who believe God intervened in a more direct, obvious way.

I find it odd that such evolutionists would continue to use terms such as ‘natural’ selection. It seems God is directly doing the selecting!

Im not educated in the biological sciences (that much is obvious!) but rather physics. I would never bring God into the natural, physical workings of the earth, as if He is actively involved in the day to day continual consequences of those laws. It is interesting that from the Gospels, Jesus DOES intervene directly to calm a storm on a lake, but that would seem to be an example of where He goes against the natural laws, to calm His disciples’ fears and to show His sovereignty.

1 Like

A thought experiment: A pastor has a dire financial need. One day he opens his door and finds an envelope with a check for exactly the right amount on his front step. I suspect that most of us do not imagine that this check materialized out of thin air and landed on his step, but rather that through some process we don’t fully understand, God stirred the heart of a thoughtful parishioner who had money and that this man or woman of God physically took out a check, wrote an amount on it, put it in one of their own envelopes, and dropped it at the pastor’s front door.

Is a miracle of this genre scientifically detectable? Not at all.
Is it unlikely and potentially miraculous? Some would surely feel so.
Is it any less miraculous for not being detectable by science? I don’t think so.

What we’re saying in rejecting ID is that God’s action in creation is not necessarily scientifically detectable. Or, at least, the examples put forth so far have not convinced us, and we don’t feel our faith is any the worse for it.

But could not God be involved in the process, directing in ways that science cannot detect? Well, why ever not?

4 Likes

I have no problem with using natural selection as I understand that to mean God did the selecting but science says it was natural. And as we are discussing a scientific theory it helps to use terminology that everyone else agrees with.

‘What we’re saying in rejecting ID is that God’s action in creation is not necessarily scientifically detectable. Or, at least, the examples put forth so far have not convinced us, and we don’t feel our faith is any the worse for it.’

  • but is that not the point? Youre arguing that all the examples given by ID proponents can be explained naturally, without a direct intervention by God. They argue that some aspects of the natural world cannot be explained without an intelligent input, though that does not mean we can ‘detect’ God there - rather that an intelligent input is required, that is the clear inference and cannot be explained by nature within itself. But you also claim that God is directly involved in the process of evolution, but He just isnt naturally detectable. That sounds familiar!

I would argue that in your analogy, the inference is that an Intelligence did indeed input to that individual. Otherwise it is a rather inexplicable coincidence - though of course atheists will explain such occurrences as pure coincidence.

I remember when the Holy Spirit first surprised John Wimber at a meeting, and he was rather shocked and confused by it all. Then that evening he received a phone call from a friend, who knew nothing of the meeting, telling him the Lord had told him to ring John and say ‘That was Me!’. And the rest is history!

But you see I dont see God directly intervening in other natural processes such as the various gravitational effects on earth. Why is evolution by natural selection different?