Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Reality is a Christian’s best ally?

arroba Email

One would have thought so, but it is interesting to hear the case urged by a Christian academic:


The common worldview among most scientists today has a name, actually, a couple of names. It is variously called “physicalism,” “materialism,” or “naturalism” since the basic concept asserts that reality consists of nothing but the physical, material world governed by nothing but natural law. Thus, C.S. Lewis called it the “nothing buttery” view. However it’s characterized, it’s a significant obstacle keeping many skeptics from taking the Christian account of reality seriously. That’s why in this month’s Solid Ground, I offer a critique of naturalism, developing three solid lines of reasoning to show naturalism’s inadequacy and Christianity’s superior “explanatory power.”

Guide for determining which Christian academic institutions to support: How clearly do they understand naturalism? Are they surrendering by degrees or fighting on the basis of evidence?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

no problem Querius bornagain77
Thanks for providing the link to the Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig paper, bornagain77. If I were a Darwinist, I would now argue that most species have evolved to their optimal genome. In the evolutionary process, they've lost a lot of their earlier genetic diversity, and thus evolutionary stasis with minor variations or extinction is more likely at this point. What I'm wondering is why isn't this the current narrative? -Q Querius
Peer-Reviewed Research Paper on Plant Biology Favorably Cites Intelligent Design and Challenges Darwinian Evolution - Casey Luskin December 29, 2010 Excerpt: Many of these researchers also raise the question (among others), why — even after inducing literally billions of induced mutations and (further) chromosome rearrangements — all the important mutation breeding programs have come to an end in the Western World instead of eliciting a revolution in plant breeding, either by successive rounds of selective “micromutations” (cumulative selection in the sense of the modern synthesis), or by “larger mutations” … and why the law of recurrent variation is endlessly corroborated by the almost infinite repetition of the spectra of mutant phenotypes in each and any new extensive mutagenesis experiment instead of regularly producing a range of new systematic species… (Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, “Mutagenesis in Physalis pubescens L. ssp. floridana: Some Further Research on Dollo’s Law and the Law of Recurrent Variation,” Floriculture and Ornamental Biotechnology Vol. 4 (Special Issue 1): 1-21 (December 2010).) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/12/peer-reviewed_research_paper_o042191.html Response to John Wise – October 2010 Excerpt: A technique called “saturation mutagenesis”1,2 has been used to produce every possible developmental mutation in fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster),3,4,5 roundworms (Caenorhabditis elegans),6,7 and zebrafish (Danio rerio),8,9,10 and the same technique is now being applied to mice (Mus musculus).11,12 None of the evidence from these and numerous other studies of developmental mutations supports the neo-Darwinian dogma that DNA mutations can lead to new organs or body plans–because none of the observed developmental mutations benefit the organism. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/10/response_to_john_wise038811.html Experimental Evolution in Fruit Flies (35 years of trying to force fruit flies to evolve in the laboratory fails, spectacularly) – October 2010 Excerpt: “Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles.,,, “This research really upends the dominant paradigm about how species evolve,” said ecology and evolutionary biology professor Anthony Long, the primary investigator. http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2010/10/07/experimental_evolution_in_fruit_flies “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain – Michael Behe – December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain. http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/ bornagain77
'I suspect though, that experiments like these have often been done, but not published because they do not provide “positive” results.' Dr JDD, the chicanery of these people is an absolute mine of humour, isn't it? That reference of yours to "positive" results....! I mean, you know.. somewhat elliptical, understated irony can be the funniest thing, and all the more so for describing a plain statement of fact, as in this case. The humour comes in many forms, and they seem to provide the source material, on some kind of conveyor belt. Axel
Hi Q, Do you really think no one has done these sorts of experiments? I'm with you - have been saying for years why don't people do more experiments to try and speed up the evolution of bacteria with radiation and other simulated stresses. I suspect though, that experiments like these have often been done, but not published because they do not provide "positive" results. This is why journals should encourage people (and not penalise) and accept papers to publish negative results (although again I doubt anyone would be brave enough to publish a negative result that implied questioning the evolutionary tale). Dr JDD
Yes, thank you bornagain77. I think that lab experiments with bacteria, various environmental stresses, and increased background radiation would be an ideal laboratory to simulate evolution over millions of years. Genomic analysis would then provide direct evidence for specific evolutionary changes. -Q Querius
Well worth reading. Thanks News. Mung
Naturalism: Bumping into Reality - Greg Koukl - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgoOBUQE_OA bornagain77
and yet,, Scant search for the Maker Excerpt: But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms. - Alan H. Linton - emeritus professor of bacteriology, University of Bristol. http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=159282 bornagain77
Yes because that is exactly what evolutionary biologists say you should be able to see with your own naked eyes in real time Starbuck
We see bacteria turning into multi-cellular organisms all the time. Silver Asiatic
Yes because we see moses and elijah rise from the dead on regular basis Starbuck

Leave a Reply