It is becoming quite clear from recent research, e.g. the ENCODE project to name one, that what one really has to look for in the origin of life is not so much a “chemical” origin but that one should rather begin to shift one’s paradigm and start looking for the origin of the information that is present in the biological assemblies.
It should be clear that there cannot be any materialistic explanation for the origin of something abstract. That would be patently absurd. If one looked at the DNA molecule it should be clear that it is not the actual chemical composition that is the predominant importance, but rather the arrangement which carries the knowledge bound up in that chemical makeup. To be clear one can have exactly the same information presented via pen and paper as on a floppy disc or hard drive or Morse code or stored in a holocube.
This is the main obstacle faced by those looking of the origin of life from a purely chemical/physical origin. They cannot account for the vast and incredibly ingeniously employed information in biological systems.
Therefore, I would guess that this is perhaps the main reason for an opposition to ID. Some want to say it’s a sly disguise fo bringing in a watered down creation story but the real issue is that acknowledging that life must have been intelligently designed is akin to admitting that purely materialistic i.e. chemical origin of life is a dead cert failure. And to acknowledge that is to acknowledge that there must be a god of whatever kind. And this cannot be tolerated. Hence - ID must per force be opposed at ANY cost. Which is kind of ironic for Christians professing to believe in a one true God who is responsible for everything in the universe.
@Prode …is that all you need? How about the answer to World Peace too.
If you look at the case for Whales species that have lost their teeth … evolutionary theory predicted finding two different genes that controlled the production of teeth.
Eventual genome analysis proved this prediction to be correct!
Hey @eddie, this is a bit revisionist about Denton…
First off, ID didn’t exist in 1985, and that certainly was not the “reason” Denton was reviled. Frankly, in the 1980s I was a YEC and was reading Hugh Ross and Walter Bradley. I probably would have been liked his work at the time, but I had never heard of him.
The problem I have with Denton is not so much is critique of neo-Darwinism, but the conflation this critique with critiques modern evolutionary theory; as if this anything more than just restating modern evolutionary theory (e.g. the extended synthesis). And the conflation of statements of problems with neo-Darwinism with a scientific case for design. That is really where the problem lies. I’m not sure how much he himself makes this conflation, but that is exactly how is work is used by the ID movement, and he seems to have no problem with this.
Such a stance is profoundly misleading. It would be about as helpful and logical as arguing that the modern theory of Relativity is wrong because of the failings of Newtonian physics. Such an argument fails basic logic, but also serves to totally confused the public, so that they think that somehow that Relativity depends on Newtonian physics.
This also is revisionist.
First off, I am glad you are remembering my correct claim that “Neo-Darwinism was falsified by discoveries back in the 1960s and 1970s”. I would emphasize that I mean “natural selection and random mutation” by “darwinism” in this claim. Not the “modern theory of evolution” as is sometimes (incorrectly) meant by this.
Second, many of these people were making that point. Quoting from wikipedia (because it gets this right). Remember the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism?
We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.
This is specifically the language chosen by the discovery institute. It equates Darwinian theory with “random mutation and natural selection” (RMNS) and suggests that scientists (1) are not examining this theory (they did and found it lacking 20 years prior) and (2) that somehow RMNS is enough to account for the complexity of life. Well, as was noted at the time, this is totally misleading and anachornistic.
Charles Darwin himself described natural selection as being “the main but not exclusive means of modification” of species.[20] The modern theory of evolution includes natural selection and genetic drift as mechanisms, and does not conclude that “the ability of random mutation and natural selection” accounts “for the complexity of life.” Southeastern Louisiana University philosophy professor Barbara Forrest and deputy director of the National Center for Science Education Glenn Branch comment on the ambiguity of the statement and its use in the original advertisement:
Such a statement could easily be agreed to by scientists who have no doubts about evolution itself, but dispute the exclusiveness of “Darwinism,” that is, natural selection, when other mechanisms such as genetic drift and gene flow are being actively debated. To the layman, however, the ad gives the distinct impression that the 100 scientists question evolution itself.[3]
Skip Evans, also of the National Center for Science Education, noted that when interviewed, several of the scientists who had signed the statement said they accepted common descent. He thus suggests that this confusion has in fact been carefully engineered.
To be clear, the dates on these quotes are the mid 2000’s, right after the DIssent became public. How could they possibly respond to something before it took place?
Now remember, I was a science student at the time. In the 1990’s I was very skeptical (if not downright opposed) to evolution. I learned about these distinctions then from my science advisor. He was very clear that drift is more dominant (and pointed me to neutral theory) than RMNS.
I would assert that scientists before, during and after the Dover Trial understood this and were stating this. However it is a technical point that was quickly forgotten by most. Instead, they focused on (1) methodological naturalism and (2) irreducible complexity. Was that an error? I do not know. But I do know that mainstream science has been wildly misrepresented by the ID movement.
It seems that either this because they do not understand the theory they are attacking, Or because they are intentionally clouding the issue. I’m not sure which it is, but prefer to take the interpretation that imputes the least negative things on them. So I would say it seems like they do not understand the science to which they are so opposed.
As for you @Eddie, I can imagine my claims about neo-Darwinism might seem surprising. But I’m not saying anything new. Everything I am saying has been said the leading evolutionists too. When I came to realize this, I quickly understood the sources of knowledge I trusted about science were not as trustworthy as I hoped. Maybe the same is true for you.
Strangely, I think that science classes should teach science, not points of view on origins. I also think that religious (or irreligious) interpretations of the science should be taught in church, at home, or in private religious schools, not public schools. I realize it is unfashionable, but I also believe in the First Amendment to the Constitution. Perhaps you’ve heard of it? “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
In any case, aren’t you the same guy who had this to say:
I’m not sure exactly what you’re trying to accomplish, but you probably would do just as well preaching on a street corner to the random passersby. I could even make you a sandwich board saying “The End Is Near,” if you want.
As expected, there is no hypothesis for evolutionary theory then…
Nothing that will ever be able to relate back to the darwinian dogma.
That can make any predictions regarding descent from one organism or further descent from where we find ourselves today.
Hence, the curtain comes down with a totally black-out statement.
NO I’m not shifting anything here. I’m pointing out why there’s opposition to ID at all - it comes from the atheistic camp and anyone adhering to the darwinian evolutionary theory has to abide by it. Take for instance the sacking of one David Coppedge and one realizes that the atheist camp is absolutely ruthless about protecting their religion.
The real sadness is that people who profess to be Christians but adhere to the darwinian evolutionary religion find themselves in the unenviable position of having to side with the enemies of Jesus against those who are committed Christians. [The Atheistic] Fighting against ID basically boils down to railing against the idea that life has an intelligent origin.
So where does that leave anyone who is a supporter of Biologos? Fighting against the God who gave them life? Denouncing anyone who dares to raise even a hint that there is an intelligent designer for life.
By the way, if ID pretends to be science, what on earth do you make of abiogenesis which is in any even worse state of credibility? That is pure religion if ever there was any. So why are you not railing against IT? Why is abiogenesis acceptable and ID not?
AS long as the definition of science excludes any other view of origins except the one the atheists prefers…you do realize that you are firmly planted in the atheist’s camp - with both feet solidly fixed in concrete?
You cannot separate the origins from the biological studies. Someone is always going to ask where life comes from and so far the best answer is NOT abiogenesis but an intelligent agent, i.e. a god or as we believe, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. You cannot get away from that. To separate religion from the biological sciences is pure sleight of hand, except for admitting the humanistic religion of Darwinism under a so-called guise of “science”.
You also do realize that allowing only abiogenesis as a “scientific” approach basically cuts people off from the real source of life. How much more fruitful it would be to able to go thru the facts confronting all biologists, systems engineers, information scientists, chemists etc. and coming to a simple conclusion → life can never arise from only naturalistic causes. The information required to set it in motion has to come from an intelligent agent. That much is clear and so the “scientific” endeavor of abiogenesis is doomed to failure.
It is also truly ironic that by forcing abiogenesis down the throat, it basically means opposition to telling people that Jesus is the source of life? How do you reconcile the two? Abiogenesis and JEsus?
You obviously don’t know anything about the case of the modern whales with no teeth.
I think you should read this (link at bottom of post) before you declare the work of thousands of academics as frivolous. Below are 3 important paragraphs:
"Scientists from the University of California suspected a gene called MMP20 might contain the mutation that had been overlooked so far. This gene seemed to be a good candidate, because the MMP20 protein is involved in processing tooth proteins such as enamelin and ameloblastin. A mutation in MMP20 could affect multiple enamel proteins downstream. Moreover, humans and mice that have a defective MMP20 gene develop bad and brittle enamel (amelogenesis imperfecta).
“The family tree of whales, including extinct relatives. Baleen whales (top) and some pygmy sperm whales (bottom) have mutations in their tooth genes. Every orange symbol denotes a mutation; different letters represent different genes.
The team initially screened four different species of baleen whales for mutations in MMP20. They hit the jackpot right away. In all four whales, a stretch of DNA (a SINE) had inserted itself right inside MMP20, splitting the gene in two. When they extended their search to other species, they found that whale after whale had the same DNA insertion inside MMP20. This ubiquity gives a clear message: it is this insertion that rung the death knell for the whale’s teeth.”
“But the researchers discovered that some pygmy sperm whales (Kogia), that belong to the branch of toothed whales, also carry mutations in their MMP20 genes. These pygmy sperm whales are also known to have enamel-less teeth. But whereas baleen whales first lost MMP20 before the other tooth genes mutated, these sperm whales seem to have lost the tooth protein enamelin first, with MMP20 now having mutated secondarily in some individuals.”
“So here are two lineages of whales, caught in the act of evolving on different, but similar paths. Evolution is sometimes criticized for not being amenable to experimental scrutiny in the lab, but the pygmy sperm whales prove these critics wrong. As the authors note, “mammalian diversity presents a unique laboratory, complete with replicated experiments.” Life herself presents us with a multitude of ingenious experiments. It is up to us to interpret them. Personally, I couldn’t imagine a more exciting science.”
Why do you keep calling the BioLogos position on Evolution “Darwinian”?
Can you find any use of the term “Darwinian” in any of BioLogos mission statements? How can it be Darwinian if it includes God in the unfolding of Evolution?
If you continue to use the terms inappropriately, I will do something I rarely do … which is flag the offending post or posts for Moderator review.
I’m trying to make people aware that they are following another god, NOT the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
That God made it clear in His word that He created everything in six literal days that was understandable to everyone human. The language used is exactly that which only applies to human kind - it was evening and it was morning the n-th day ( n going from 1 thru to 6 ). This God did not have any need of evolution to accomplish what He desired.
Hence, anyone making assertions of billions of years for creation is basically saying that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is a liar. It’s not even about the personal interpretation because basically none is needed. It’s about the humanistic viewpoint versus what stands so clearly in the bible.
You are totally free to worship at the altar of the atheistic religion that is disguised as “science”, just be aware that it completely contradicts the word of the one true God.
Please GBrooks9, spare us the iron fist which is so nicely disguised under the velvet cloth of civility
Have you not heard that iron sharpens iron? What do you have to fear from someone pointing out that there is simply zero difference between what is supported by Biologos and what the atheist believes?
Are you really so blind as to not see that you cannot separate your evolutionary story from what the atheist preaches?
You cannot somehow invent a new kind of evolutionary theory that somehow sidesteps the origins in Darwinism and suddenly include God in some negligible way. Someone has started a tread on exactly this point - how is God involved in this evolutionary process?
So please put away your sword, it is really not needed here.
Well it depends on what is meant by innocent. Those who are fully knowledgeable of their actions and defends their beliefs in the most vigorous way can hardly be considered to be innocent and unwitting.
I am quite familiar with the tactic of defining what BioLogos presents as Darwinian Evolution … and then… low and behold… all the evils of Atheistic Darwinianism come rolling forward.
But I see no information or evidence that BioLogos has anything to do with Darwinian Evolution as you describe it.
So… once again… either get with the program, or avoid using the term Darwinian, okay?
You don’t have to accept the BioLogos position… but you cannot willy-nilly give it a name you know doesn’t apply and then criticize the BioLogos position from thereon out …
EDIT > P.S. My view of God’s involvement in Evolution is 100% complete. It is not a minor role. There is nothing random about Evolution, in my view, from God’s perspective. It is all part of His plan, and He uses it as He uses other sets of natural law.
AND He performs the necessary miracle (as a break in the chain of natural causation) as His plan requires. I can’t see anything about my views being Darwinian at all… other than he (Darwin) got the whole area of study rolling.
I’d really like to understand where you get this statement from? What exactly is the source of this information that this is how God operates. I have not come across it in the bible so where does it come from? Please do enlighten me.
So how else can one then describe an adherence to the Darwinian way of thinking except to use the words Darwinian and Darwinism? I struggle to comprehend why you’d want to deny that the thought pattern has its roots there and is currently STILL of the same root? How do you break away from it? Is there a new definition of common descent that I do not know of?