Our FAQ on irreducible complexity also has some good info on this: http://biologos.org/questions/complexity-of-life And an older series: http://biologos.org/blog/series/reducing-irreducible-complexity
Sure. Co option sounds good and I don’t deny it. Let’s go to a automobile factory where every part needed to make a car is available. Someone has to assemble them together to produce a functional engine.
Let’s say the bacteria has all the parts needed to make a flagellum. How did natural selection put them together? Selection is dependent on benefits to the organism. Having all the parts does not mean anything. Most people don’t seem to get how difficult the problem is… It is the assembly of parts that poses a problem for evolution. the presence of parts is meaningless.I have been reading Miller’s arguments and neither he nor the other Darwin defenders see the problem- how did the building get built by a step by process? Most of the time, I see descriptions of structures but very little on how they got built.
I never had a problem with evolution until I read the edge of evolution and realized how difficult the problem is. As an Bio undergraduate, I can understand the arguments being made but they are missing the point.
I appreciate your calm and measured tone. Usually, there is lots of name calling when it comes to this topic.
I think this video explains the co option argument Unlocking the Mystery of Life (Chapter 5 of 12) - YouTube
Remember, we’re not atheists or deists here. We’re not trying to tack on God to Neo-Darwinism. We believe there are purposes and goals for creation (I think Simon Conway Morris’s work on convergence is hugely suggestive in this regard). We believe that God intentionally created human beings. Natural selection is not random (as you stated earlier). Perhaps genetic mutations are all random (though I wouldn’t be surprised if there is something else going on there too). But surely God can use these partially random processes to achieve his purpose. Even we mortals can use random processes like the lottery to achieve predictable outcomes.
So, we think God is involved in the development of life. It’s just that we think there is incredible fruitfulness in studying that process scientifically. That last series I pointed to gave lots of advances in understanding supposedly irreducibly complex processes. Should we have just stopped looking for such things after Behe’s book? If we don’t have all the answers in 50 years should we just stop? If we do figure out some of these scientific issues, that doesn’t mean that God had nothing to do with it.
Good chatting with you.
1 Like
Very good question. Unfortunately, my personal feeling is that science will never accept ID as a legitimate argument because of the simple fact that it can’t be empirically proven. To be fair I definitely agree that guys like Meyer, Dembski and Behe have been mischaracterized concerning their particular viewpoint of ID.
In principle I agree with their overall conclusion that the best known cause for organisms that contain complex specified information is intelligence. We see this phenomenon happening all the time in our world today as engineers and computer scientists (intelligent agents) create this kind of information on a daily basis. So in theory it is a scientific observation to conclude that intelligent agents can create complex specified information. However the problem is that when we look at particular organisms (the bacterial flagellum) and try to understand how it could have come together we obviously see no direct empirical evidence of an intelligent agent putting it together. The same thing from an empirical standpoint seems to be true of the genetic material within organisms. Although it is true that DNA is most definitely a form of complex specified information we don’t see “God” from a direct analysis putting the pieces together (or writing the code).
Now, the observation that we do not see God creating things or putting things together does not in any way mean that God is not involved in such a process. On the contrary, I tend to believe that based upon what we know about cosmology, physics and biology today that God like a brilliant mathematician has put together “specific constants and laws” that bring about certain phenomenon like life as we observe it today. So from the viewpoint of science living organisms are a natural effect that are “produced” from a natural cause. In the larger picture though God is the intelligent designer of such a process.
I appreciate the work that Meyer, Dembski and Behe have put together. I especially like Dembski’s research concerning information and his metaphysical analysis of it (see his book “Being as Communion.”) I think your question is very legit and I would definitely like to hear from others who are professionals in these areas of discipline.
1 Like
Jim,
I think your response to ID is basically on target. The question is not “Does God create?” but “How does God create?” and God does create by natural processes as best we can tell.
That however brings me to Darwin’s blind spot, Natural Selection, which is also BioLogos’ blind spot. Variation is random, if not completely random, while Natural Selection is not. So the question is “How does God work through Natural Selection?”
Probably Christians are turned off by the word “natural,” in Natural Selection because it seems to eliminate God. However what BioLogos has been saying and certainly what the Bible says is that God works in and through nature. Psalm 139:13-16 powerfully proclaims that humans are created by YHWH, but does not deny the fact that we are also the products of human parents.
God created the physical universe as well as the organic universe. What I am saying is that it is God’s purpose that the physical universe be the nursery and guide for the organic universe leading eventually to humans through a plan that only God could conceive and carry out.
I know that this is farfetched from our modern human point of view, but I hope that BioLogos would give my thought a fair hearing before it rejects it.
2 Likes
In the next 10 years, we will discover even more complex systems that would require serious explanations. The optimists will say as we learn more, we can explain how it evolved. I am not that optimistic.
How does God create? Simple answer is we don’t know. Some look for mutations to explain how motors assembled. I don’t have so much faith.
The universe is finely tuned and we know that by various physical constants/values. Nobody asks how God fine tuned those laws. We just accept it. Did God have some kind of a special dial where he was playing around until he figured the right constants? We don’t know. We still accept these numbers without asking how they came about. We have reached an edge and nobody complains.
A theory is scientific if it can be falsified. Evolution by natural selection can’t be falsified. Common descent can be but not the process by which species arose.
Intelligent Design has theological conclusions and it annoys people. As time goes on, instead of making things clearer, science will show more complex functions that will not be explained by naturalistic explanations. Most biologists are atheists and therefore they do not want to accept such a conclusion.
The origin of life has been debated and studied for more than 50 years and we are not near to solving the puzzle. This topic has led more people to accept God than anything else because it can’t be explained by science. Dean Kenyon on the origin of life: Email #04- The Charles Darwin of our time - YouTube
Very true. At best we are trying to see what happened and then understand why.
You bring up two different aspects of the Creation. One is evolutionary change. This is a legitimate subject for science because we need to understand changes in our world. Change however has been a problem for philosophy which values eternity as opposed to change.
The Bible however is the story of change. The theological problem is how does God Who does not change create a world which is constantly changing?
On the other hand the question if fine tuning is not a question of change, but the question of constants. Is the fact that the universe is structured it such a precise manner that life can come into existence a most improbable coincidence or part of a rational plan? If one believes in magic, then irrational events might happen, but I prefer a rational plan.
Of course the multiverse theory is the alternative to rational creation. It says that somehow “nature” creates universes in a random manner in an infinite variety, or almost infinite variety so that at least one is right for life as we know it. If you don’t succeed at first, try, try again.
In my opinion the problem is not that science cannot explain life and the world, but that chance cannot explain the world. There is no reason to believe that the universe was created by chance and every reason to think that the universe is the product of a rational Mind. This does require God to intervene to make things happen. It means that we can discover rational laws that explain how nature works.
We need also to understand our world and how its ecology works so that the changes that humans have made in the environment do not destroy the balances that God’s created and ruin the home God has made for us.
1 Like
Naturalism is the most extreme form of atheism, and operates on the unproven “blind faith” belief that everything is solely the result of “vastly improbable” chance events for which there exists no testable or verifiable scientific answers. Which itself turns out to be a definition of magic and “miracles”. Namely vastly improbable “metaphysical” events that are beyond the explanatory power of science and physics.
Intelligent design is not only science, but the foundational principle on which all of science functions, and without which it is impossible to do science. Every scientist functions on the principle that the universe is both rational and “intelligible”. No scientist truly believes that they apply their reason and intelligence to a irrational non-intelligent universe. Nor does the scientific world copy the designs discovered in nature and apply these to technology in the belief that this is only “apparent” design. Scientists are copying what they regard as “real” design, and they know it is “real” because it works in the technology they produce. And as the technology they produce necessitates a designer, so does the design in nature. As an intelligent effect always demands an intelligent cause. And all the courts and scientific affiliations in the world opposing ID cannot change this “self-evident” reality.
Thus, the issue of our time is not “is it science”, but whether mainstream science itself now lives in a surreal world of its own making, far removed from reality. So, blinded by “metaphysical” naturalism and godless materialism that it is now living in denial of the self-evident reality that the universe is intelligible and that real design exists. Thus, sawing off the limb science is sitting on. That is precisely why ID will not only survive, but ultimately prevail. 
Deep down there is a strong belief that science will solve the origin of complex structures. It also doesn’t help that the people who criticize natural selection are religious. The other side begins to bury the head in the sand by invoking co option as the solution. It is a knee jerk reaction because there is a feeling that if nothing is done then they will lose the debate.
We know that the flagellum evolved before the type III system so the co option theory is not adequate enough.
Personally, I don’t understand why naturalism is the only acceptable answer even when it contradicts every fact know. It is an ideological battle that will take a long time to win.
Why do theistic evolutionists believe in miracles after all the mechanism of someone being cured of an incurable disease is not known? ID explanation of the first cell is similar to how Christians accept miracles. They don’t question how a dead man rose on the third day. But by using simple logic and facts, we know that the resurrection happened as promised in the Old Testament.
ID is a metaphysical explanation of things that cannot be explained by naturalistic processes. The whole debate is over philosophy.
How is it falsifiable? And if it’s so obviously falsifiable, which ID proponents are trying to falsify it in the laboratory or the field?
I’m not following you. First, scientific disagreements are not resolved by debates. They are resolved by people who do the hard work of rigorously testing their hypotheses.
Can you point me to a single case of an ID proponent rigorously testing an ID hypothesis?
John,
I agree with your concerns. I agree that the universe is intelligently designed and created by God. I agree that those who take the ideology of modern science are in danger of going off the deep end, as are those who take the ideology of YEC.
Where I don’t agree is that we can prove this by scientific methods. This is a philosophical question as you have indicated and must be addressed by philosophical means.
As best as I can tell ID does not do this and neither does evolutionary creation, although evolutionary creation does not attempt to do so.
"First, scientific disagreements are not resolved by debates.’
Actually, all scientific disagreements are resolved by debates. That is precisely what peer review is all about.
"Can you point me to a single case of an ID proponent rigorously testing an ID hypothesis?
Yes! As I have already pointed out, the ID hypothesis is tested out all the time by every person who has ever existed, and by everyone engaged in science. I would be very surprised if you yourself lived your life on any other basis. Namely, the hypothetical premise that you lived in a universe that was “irrational” and “non-intelligent” Nor do I know of scientists who operates on the hypothetical premise that they apply their vast rational and intellectual resources to an "irrational and “non-intelligent” universe - Do you? Everyone any of us functions on the self-evident hypothetical premise that we live in a universe that is both “rational” and “intelligible”, including you. It is impossible to do science or live life our lives on any other basis. Thus, you do not need “hard work” to “rigorously test” a hypothetical premise that is foundational to life and science. It’s a shame you missed it. And the fact that opponents of ID seem unable to grasp or discern this self-evident reality simply staggers me.
I need to remind you that the pioneers of modern science were theists who clearly saw evidence of an “intelligent” transcendent “self-existing” first cause at every level all around them. They knew this because everything they ever observed in the universe was dependent on a external cause beyond itself to explain its existence, including the running down dying universe itself. A universe that these scientist, and every scientist since, has noted could not explain or sustain itself, and was undergoing radiometric and biological decay.
All scientists know that nothing ever observed in the universe was self-explaining or self-existing" And thus these scientists logically saw that the only philosophical and scientific answer for cosmic existence was the necessary existence of a non-dependent “transcendent” self-existing first cause - God: Because the alternative was an infinite regress of dependent causes where no preceding cause had the capability to bring itself into existence. Not ever, forever! And thus there was never a philosophical or scientific basis for cosmic existence.
So, if you know of anything in existence in the universe that is self-existing and self-explaining with godlike creative capabilities tell us all what it is. As a juicy Nobel Prize awaits you, and we can all dismiss God.
Moreover, these scientists saw clear evidence of this “intelligent” first cause and “intelligent Design” around them, at every level. So compelling is this “teleological” evidence for God existence that the Apostle Paul declares that humanity is “without excuse” based on this reality alone. Indeed, the acknowledged initial minimum entropy state of the universe affirms that the universe “started out” in a state of maximum order, information and optimum usable energy: Affirmed by the initial necessary fine tuning of the cosmological constants and the initial precisely balanced state of subatomic particles. Had it been otherwise there would be no universe. As noted by Templeton award winning physicist, Paul Davies. Attempting to reconcile this initial tailor made cosmic state with a universe supposedly evolving to increasing order remains the unsolved paradox of origins science.
Evidence of Intelligent design surrounds us on every side: The unity and highly structured cosmic order; the unique water molecule; the inherent natural patterns; natural laws, mathematical relationships and predictability; multitude combined factor essential for a life supporting terrestrial plant; the origin of life and consciousness; the breathtaking complexity of DNA genetic coding; the superbly integrated and coordinated nature of eco-systems, and the vast environmental matrix of interdependent and co-dependent life forms are all clear evidence of an “intelligent” cause, and “intelligent Design”.
Meaning, theists who argue against “intelligent Design” thus operate on the alternate premise that they live in an undesigned “unintelligent” universe, created by an unintelligent god.
I frankly find it inconceivable that any theist would argue against “intelligent design” and absorb the anti-ID misotheism actively propagated by a largely atheistic scientific community fully committed to “metaphysical” naturalism and godless materialism. Another name for this godless philosophical worldview is “scientism”, not science.
Can you see your problem?
No, John. They are not. If you disagree, kindly tell me how the following two disagreements were resolved by debates and not new data:
- the prion hypothesis
- the hypothesis that bacteria cause stomach ulcers
Again, you need to show me how people in the field were convinced by rhetoric and not new data.
Peer review is not debate.
I’m really with you on this, in that on the grand scale, it is God’s science, that we are discovering. The scientists will continue to learn it, and share with us the many beautiful intricate secrets, but no matter how you slice it, the natural process is His. Without His ID, we would not be here. The complexities of the universe, and even the “simple” cell, just could not have self-assembled without an initial designer, who incorporated everything necessary to develop and create what we see today. I wonder if the differences between ID and Biologos are non-issue, but as James Stump wrote earlier here, does irreducible complexity theory mean scientists should stop trying to understand the natural process? No, I agree they should not, but does natural process really mean there is not a guiding hand behind it? IMO if you invoke creator in even one aspect of natural science, then you must invoke His hand entirely.
John,
The problem is not whether the universe is designed or not. The problem is not whether God designed the universe or not. The problem is, How does God design the universe, esp. the bio-world and human world? This where Intelligent Design the scientific theory fails, as opposed to the theology of God the Intelligent Designer.
First of all let us accept the scientific premise that evolution is based in part on “natural selection.” Does this mean, as atheists would claim, that God has no hand in natural selection because natural is defined as the opposite of divine? Of course not.
We know that God created and designed the forms and content of nature, so God is fully able to work through and with natural means to create life and human beings. However that knowledge is still theological/philosophical and not scientific. So the scientific question is still, How does God work through natural selection?
One way would be to create the universe in such a way that would predetermine its outcome. This of course is the old argument, which I would reject for various theological and other reasons.
Atheists claim basically that evolution is based on chance, however it is clear from all the evidence that natural selection is not based on chance, but is rational and determinate. Therefore natural selection is teleological by definition. Therefore it is natural selection that drives and gives shape to evolution.
The problem is that science and creationists have been stuck on understanding evolution as being driven by genetic variation, which is in large part random. Thus they have failed to comprehend the actual nature of natural selection, which is the fitness based on the ability of life forms to adapt to their environment, that is their ecological niche or create a new one. The old answer to this question, “survival of the fittest” is neither rational nor determinate.
We must stop the old arguments and look for new solutions for this debate. Ecology is a new understanding of how our world works, different from the old gene based view of Neo-Darwinism. It allows for a clear way out of the old stalemate. It means that all sides must give a little in order to gain a lot. However it also means people must be willing to change and to admit that their views are not completely correct, which is not easy for many.