It is not a question of having a right to complain. It is the question as what does complaining achieve? Nothing. Science and faith are in the business of solving and overcoming sin, not sitting around complaining as some do.
1 Like
Hi GJDS -
You seem to be defining science as mathematically expressed, deterministic predictions about natural phenomena. Anything else is non-science, or perhaps inferior science at best. If I have misunderstood you, please elaborate on what I have missed.
But I would contend that much of science deals with stochastic, probabilistic processes. This happens even in chemistry, if I remember my high school studies correctly. Take the example of atomic decay rates: if I observe 1 atom of U-235, I have no idea when it will become an atom of Th-231 by the process of alpha decay. I can only state that there is a 50% probability that the decay will occur in the next 704M years, a 75% probability that it will happen in the next 1.4B years, etc.
Biological evolution is likewise a stochastic, probabilitistic process. Depending on the environment, the error rate in DNA transcription due to tautomeric shift, strand slippage, etc. varies from 1 in 10^3 to 1 in 10^9. My understanding of the Neo-Darwinian synthesis was that it relied on DNA transcription error for its model of variation. But in recent years other models of variation (e.g., gene duplication or transcription error in regulatory genes) have come under study, which is why biologists still havenāt pinned all the details down yet.
Moreover, the direction of the filtering function (natural selection) varies over timeāagain, in a non-deterministic, stochastic way. A volcano eruption, a large meteor strike, a drought, a local flood, the appearance of a new predator or food source, etc., can change what traits are being favored by natural selection at a particular place and time.
But we donāt have to just throw up our hands. Instead, we can make reasonable predictions by summing the probabilities over a large aggregate. In the realm of chemistry, this might involve predicting U-235 decay for a kg, rather than one atom. I might not be able to predict how many alpha emissions will occur in one millisecond, but I might within a small margin of error predict how many I would detect with a certain instrument at a certain distance over a period of one hour.
In the same way, the theory of evolution makes predictions over large periods of time. For example, the molecular clock technique can approximately predict the time of divergence between whales and even-toed hoofed mammals from a common ancestor. The fossil record supports this prediction.
The theory of evolution will never reach the level of precision achieved by the theory of molecular bonding because the fossil record will always be incomplete, our understanding of the natural selection pressures at a particular time and place in history will always be incomplete, and the variables in speciation are both numerous and stochastic. This does not mean we canāt build a sensible theory of evolution over large aggregates, though, just as chemists do with atomic decay.
I thank anyone who has stayed with me to the end of this comment, and I invite corrections and elaboration. I am a science amateur.
Regards!
Hi Chris,
Many of the points you have raised have been discussed on this site over the past two years, and I have at times responded at length, so I hope you do not mind if this reply is brief.
I do not define science - I delineate between science that has a sound foundation (inevitably grounded in rigorous maths) from areas of science which are the subject of debate and controversy. The former I include in my contemplation of the theology of the Christian faith. The latter may be of some interest, but if it is not in my field, I regard as mildly interesting. See my comment to Sy.
Now regarding evolution in the widest sense (and thus the least controversial), I have looked through sufficient recent reviews and papers, to cause me to ask some questions. All of these questions are in the context of my theological interests, not in whatever form they are debated. These areas include: what is understood by random in evolution, how common descent is presented (i.e. tree of life, bush of life, forest of life, universal common ancestry, partial ancestry, to name those I have come across), and above all, what is proposed by evolutionists as verified, or a prediction proven as true.
To illustrate the last point, I presented a reference that was the most detailed treatment of a scheme that claimed to have identified the common ancestor of that scheme of species. This was so detailed that the common ancestor was presented as s distinct species that an artist drew to show all features (height, weight, all features, fur, skeleton, and so on). As a scientist I was very interested in verification of this claim - perhaps a fossil, perhaps some bones, perhaps some type of physically examined piece that would be at the very least, consistent with their claim that they had verified this through science, let alone proven by science. Nothing has been provided by the research workers, nor any of the strident defenders who debated this with me. My conclusion is: they infer a common ancestor and have not verified their claim.
My remarks need to be understood within the context of science - I have performed many high level models in my area, and proposed complex schemes of chemistry that involve key molecules and specific data - these models and computations would not be accepted for publication if I do not provide exact data that verifies, and quantifies, key areas of my schemes. This is a general rule for the sciences - we cannot make exceptions for evolution. So I agree there is a lot of interest in evolutionary thinking, and lots of controversy and debate - this by definition means it is in a state of flux. The pros and cons of this flux are fine for those involved in such debates, but for me to accept this as verified (weaker claim than proven), the key areas must be provided on a sound foundation that is excepted for all science. Predictions over large periods of time are termed inferences, unless, as I pointed out in my example, they are verified in the standard way that all science does.
I have attempted to locate specific evangelicals who have taken a position on Free Will ā¦ as well as Creationism. Frankly, itās become quite the time sink.
I think I will have to settle for a process that uses ālarge numbersā.
Naturally, I ended up gravitating to the the association of Free Will Baptists ā¦ which is estimated to be roughly 200,000 members, distributed across 2,425 churches (which averages to more than 80 members per church).
Free Will Baptists are rather notorious for being āsuspicious of scienceā and pro-Creationism.
Free Will Baptist Pastor Kevin Riggs appears to have written a few booksā¦ so I would be fairly confident that here we have a man who simultaneously endorses Creationism, while denying the general applicability of Romans 9.
George
Thank you for the results of your research. It was very helpful.
I have to wonder how Free Will Baptists discuss Romans 9ā¦
Hi GJDS-
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. With regard to the specific example you citeāa particular inferred common ancestorāagain, I think that we need to reason over a larger aggregate.
To cite the chemistry example again: I can infer how much alpha radiation I would detect from a given quantity of U-235 in a particular nanosecond, but my prediction could be completely wrong. Instead, I need to make my prediction over a much longer time period (say, hours).
Similarly, given the incompleteness of the fossil record and Bayes theorem, the odds that a particular inferred common ancestor has been discovered are quite low. So we need to make a prediction over a larger aggregate. Hereās how I would phrase such a prediction:
Of the billions of common ancestral species that could be inferred over the vast history of life on earth, the theory of evolution would predict that some small portion of them (say, thousands) should have been discovered. Furthermore, these thousands should exhibit a phylogeny that matches their pedigreeāi.e., they should lie somewhere on a evolutionary, transitional pathway from earlier species to later ones.
Note that I would measure earlier and later by radiometric dating of geological formations. Note also that this prediction could be readily distinguished from the contrasting YEC prediction that, given dinosaurs lived contemporaneously with humans and they all (with the exception of Noahās family) were extinguished in a worldwide flood in a single year, the fossil remains of dinosaurs and humans should at least occasionally be commingled.
Having made the prediction based on evolution, proponents of evolution like me should be able to present thousands of fossils whose phylogeny matches their pedigree. And we can!
With respect to that one case you cited, I would agree that it does not provide any evidence for evolution until a matching fossil is found. For now, that one case is merely an unverified inference. But does that mean we should ignore the thousands of verified inferences we already have?
And finally, biologists have verified many other evolutionary inferences by other forms of evidence. Over a period of 35,000 generations, a population of E. Coli acquired the ability to metabolize citrate through a series of DNA mutations (see here and here). In just 500 years, a single population of mice on the island of Madeira diverged into 6 different species. Etcetera.
Hi Chris,
I see that we are more or less in agreement regarding inferences as opposed to verification and scientific proofs. If this is so, I suggest to you that discussions of faith and reason, which seek to modify, or bring in new, theological matters into the Christian faith, cannot be based on inferences and debatable aspects of any branch of science. Thus my reluctance to accept arguments that appear novel theological outlooks that are derived from inferences within evolutionary debates and outlooks.
I am not suggesting that arguments focussed solely on biology and evolutionary aspects of that branch of science are not based on good scientific work. It is the conclusions and subsequent theological arguments that need to be curtailed - these remarks are valid for anyone, or any outlook, be it ID, EC, TE, YEC, OEC.
Your example of radioactivity and predictability of a single event is, dare I say it, old and is not something that sheds light on evolution. Others have tried bringing in other aspects of physics, chemistry, quantum uncertainty, and so on - I do not know why they do this, as their discussions revolve about evolution and not QM. Radioactivity is never incomplete, fossil records are; measurements at the quantum level are often some of the most accurate ones that are made by science, which is the opposite of measurements of fossils. Evolutionists argue for an arrow in time (a pathway from earlier to later and increasing complexity) and others argue against this. So I come back to my original point - these are debates and disagreements amongst proponents of evolution, not amongst mathematicians, physicists and chemists.
I will point out (without rancour) that ābiologists have verified ā¦ inferencesā¦ā is an odd phrase and would not be accepted by scientists 
So Iām glad to hear that mathematicians, physicists and chemists donāt have these problems. So Iām going to take the opportunity to ask you some questions in those fields that Iāve been puzzling over:
- To what extent do hyperconjugation and resonance contribute to the energy barrier to bond rotation?
- Is it possible to for an element with atomic number higher than 137 to exist?
- Is there a Theory of Everything?
- Multiverse: productive theory for research, or ultimate cop-out?
This statement is disingenuous at best and nonsense at worst - I made it abundantly clear that in these fields, we distinguish between well established rigorously examined theory which is obviously subjected to mathematical treatment and scrutiny, and other areas which are leading edge research subject to criticisms and debate. Your response seems overly defensive, implying that we may question other areas of science, but accept evolution without question. Such an outlook is ludicrous - especially in light of your four points (and higher elements related to evolution and its debates? where did that come from? 
)
My comment had two motivations. One was to show there are areas of inquiry in physics and chemistry that practitioners argue over, just as biologists argue over the arrow of time (if indeed it exists).
Chemists argue over the mechanisms of the energy barrier to bond rotation, just as biologists argue over the mechanisms of DNA variation.
But chemists donāt doubt the energy barrier to bond rotation, just as biologists donāt doubt the veracity of biological evolution.
I say this without rancor, my friend GJDS: You want me to accept the well-established theories in chemistry and physics in spite of the āareas which are leading edge research subject to criticisms and debate.ā I am happy to do so. Are you willing to accept the well-established theory of biological evolution in spite of the areas of biology (such as the arrow of time and the mechanisms of DNA variation) which are āleading edge research subject to criticisms and debateā?
My other motivation was to show that even the hardest of sciences ultimately rest on unproven, and unprovable, assumptions. The existence of fundamental particles is something physicists infer, for example. The wonderful folks at CERN didnāt observe a Higgs boson; they inferred it, if Iām understanding it correctly, by applying the standard model of particle physics to a decay signature. Moreover, they didnāt really have āproofā; they were simply able to reject the null hypothesis at a confidence of 5.9-sigma. Thatās 1/588M, so Iām willing to accept the inference.
Moreover, we speak of the ālaws of scienceā even though every scientific statement rests on the unprovenāindeed unprovableāassumption that mathematically and logically defined relationships observed in the past will continue unchanged into the future. The speed of light wonāt change; the mass of an electron wonāt changeā¦ Iām willing to accept those statements, even though theyāre unprovable. If an experiment cannot be replicated, the scientific community assumes that there was an error in the first experiment (or the second). The scientific community does not assume that the parameters of the equations changed. I donāt have any disagreement with the scientific community, but itās important to recognize that science ultimately infers a lot of important stuff from an unproven assumption. Those inferences have given us solar energy panels and the keyboards on which we type BioLogos comments and the refrigerators that preserve our food, so Iām willing to accept the foundational assumptions and inferences of science. But we need to recognize that there is no such thing as science without unproven foundational assumptions, and inferences from those foundations.
My friend Chris,
None of your statements bother me or are reasons for rancour. I keep coming back to theological matters, and consistently point out that I have a criteria in this context, which informs my contemplations on faith and science.
So I would be glad to leave our interesting exchange at this point, with this comment - faith in my view is of inestimable value, and reason as I employ it is consistent with my faith. Science as a human activity is interesting, and as a scientist, I value it within the faith-reason contemplation, and that is it. I would be glad if all scientist eventually reach an agreement on evolution, if only to end the endless debates between atheists and theists, and amongst theists.
I wish you well and encourage you to spend at least as much time in considering the timeless theological insights of Christianity, as you seem to spend on evolution.
And I wholeheartedly concur with your last word, GJDS! Rest assured that I spend much more time on timeless theological truths than on evolution. I just finished reading N.T. Wrightās Scripture and the Authority of God, for example.
May the Lord do a great work in our hearts this Lenten season!
nothing, like we cannot prove God either unless your God is called alcohol or rum which you can proof by dowsing gun powder with itand testing if you can set it alight.
If I would show that I can derive a new species by crossbreeding of animals in an experiment I havenāt given you a āproofā for āevolutionā but evidence that new species can be derived from cross breeding e.g that an agent aka God could create new species by cross breeding. The odd thing is even if I would observe this to happen in nature without my interference, to infer that the process would not be under the influence of a will would not be justifiable. In the case of copulation it is clear that the penis of one animal is not ending up in the vagina of another one by random chance, e.g because the one male animal had a random erection whilst standing behind a female that was ovulating when suddenly hit from behind by an object that pushed either of them forward into position that aroused from so much chaos he released the sperm inside the vagina. Even if you postulate the origin of a feature to be random mutation, its propagation is based in itās benefit to the system as the rule, e.g. to love thy neighbour like thyself.
Proof is hard to come by. We all accept existential proof e.g. the dead body of a parrot and the Monty Python dead parrot sketch can be used as an entertaining introduction to the concept of proof accepting rigor mortis for the proof of death. At earlier points it becomes much more difficult and even further if you try to establish the cause of it. Funny that the ultimate cause of material death is material life itself. but the intermediate causes are difficult to establish particularly when involving a crime.
In science we can only prove things wrong, otherwise any experimental data I produce are evidence for the predictive or explanatory power of my theory, but not proof as they are only observations in a constraint of the experimental conditions. Thus if you are a good scientist you do not try to prove your theory right but show that you tried and failed to prove it wrong.
The reason you can do a proof in math is that the system of mathematics is defined by ourselves thus we make a proof in a system that we are outside of, e.g.a closed system. If we accept that our reality is constraint by logic and reality we can only prove things wrong by showing them to be logically incoherent or by providing experimental evidence that goes against the predicted results. So the only 100% accuracy you can have for yourself is your own existence and some people put even that into question 
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.