Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Evolution of Life and the Evolution of Technology

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The first part of the video below, which is essentially my invited talk at a recent meeting in Erzurum, Turkey, is based on my 2013 BioComplexity article “Entropy and Evolution.” However, I want to focus here on the second part, beginning at the 19:40 mark, which discusses the remarkable similarities between the evolution of life and the evolution of human technology. The primary argument of Darwinists, from Darwin on down, has never been “natural selection of random variations is a reasonable explanation for evolution,” it has always been “evolution doesn’t look like the way God would have done things, therefore it must have been due to natural causes, and all other natural theories are even more far-fetched than ours.”

[youtube iG7KI7I7XDo]

The assumption underlying this argument is that God would have created with a magic wand, and new species would have appeared out of nowhere, with no connection to previous species, and we don’t see this in the fossil record (except possibly at the beginning of the Cambrian era!). What we do see, as explored in the second part of this video, are remarkable similarities between the evolution of life and the evolution of human technology, as seen in the patterns in the fossil record, and in a phenomenon known as “convergence.”

After my talk in Erzurum, a young man approached me and said (approximately) “do you, as a scientist, really not believe in evolution? Do you think life was due to supernatural causes?” If I had had more time to prepare a reply, I would have said, “The development of the automobile, from primitive to current forms: would you call that ‘evolution’? If so, then I believe in the evolution of life. But like the development of life, the development of the automobile was primarily due to intelligent causes; would you call those causes ‘supernatural’?”

Some people do not like the comparison, because (1) it may seem to bring God’s design down to the level of human design, and (2) they may say that Genesis 1 does paint a picture of creation by magic wand. With regard to (1), I would say that it does not bring God down to our level, because the things God has designed are so much more advanced than the things we design, but a designer must always get involved in the details of his design, no matter how intelligent he may be. And with regard to (2), although of course Genesis 1 is not an accurate scientific account of creation, even here we see a God who created one type of animal, “saw that it was good,” and proceeded to improve on it; that sounds a lot like the way we create things, though testing and improvements. And if all God had to do to create species was to wave a wand, why does the Bible say that on the seventh day, God “rested from all the work of creating that he had done”?

Comments
VunderGuy: yes, I am. JLAfan2001:
I absolutley do affirm nihilism. It’s the only reality. I’m not going to be like other atheists and pretend that meaning, value and purpose are real just because I say it is. Those things have no evidence in and of themselves except for “it makes me feel good” which is subjective evidence. If I were going to do that, I might as well believe in god. And Barb’s reference was towards me. She likes to call me names rather than refute my arguments or face the reality of her superstitions.
Honey, your so-called arguments favoring atheism and nihilism have been debunked so many times I've lost count. But you continue believing whatever you want. Oh, and I quoted a movie. I didn't use an ad hominem argument against you. Sorry that you can't tell the difference.Barb
May 20, 2014
May
05
May
20
20
2014
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT
Vunderguy I absolutley do affirm nihilism. It's the only reality. I'm not going to be like other atheists and pretend that meaning, value and purpose are real just because I say it is. Those things have no evidence in and of themselves except for "it makes me feel good" which is subjective evidence. If I were going to do that, I might as well believe in god. And Barb's reference was towards me. She likes to call me names rather than refute my arguments or face the reality of her superstitions.JLAfan2001
May 20, 2014
May
05
May
20
20
2014
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT
@Barb I'm assuming you're talking to me?VunderGuy
May 20, 2014
May
05
May
20
20
2014
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT
"Listen, and understand. That terminator JLAfan2001 is out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you ID and/or creationism are dead."Barb
May 20, 2014
May
05
May
20
20
2014
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT
@JLAfan2001 "Answer: he didn’t create anything. Nature did it all and science has shown and proved it. Nature did it the way it did. We are just caught up in it’s methods. Theists are now scrambling to try and fit their myths into science to make it work and it just doesn’t. Either you have to distort the science or you have to distort the theology. Only someone honest will walk away from it all." So, you would affirm nihilism then?VunderGuy
May 20, 2014
May
05
May
20
20
2014
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT
"they may say that Genesis 1 does paint a picture of creation by magic wand." I thought Genesis 1 painted the picture that God created both animals and man out of similar previously nonliving matter and that, though we share similarities with animals because of this, we were the only one that God bestowed something special to.VunderGuy
May 20, 2014
May
05
May
20
20
2014
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PDT
Don't confuse him, Andre, there's a good chap.Axel
May 20, 2014
May
05
May
20
20
2014
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT
Dr JDD I realize it is a theological discussion. I was trying to point out that if the science of YEC doesn't jive then sin never entered the world causing all the problems we see. It must have been present already and used as a method by god to create nature since this method was around for billions of years. Why would god use this method to create if he is all-powerful? Why not create exactly the way the bible describes it? Answer: he didn't create anything. Nature did it all and science has shown and proved it. Nature did it the way it did. We are just caught up in it's methods. Theists are now scrambling to try and fit their myths into science to make it work and it just doesn't. Either you have to distort the science or you have to distort the theology. Only someone honest will walk away from it all. So why would god create things this way if he is all-powerful?JLAfan2001
May 20, 2014
May
05
May
20
20
2014
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT
JFLAN2001 Let me help you.... was it painful to you when you had that cauliflower and steak the other day? Yep that painful horrible way is all about the food chain, checks and balances system, biological limit on age also a very good system, you can think on why it is so good rather than painful yourself. Secondly pain is indeed bad, I agree but pain is also a very good thing, think of how many times pain has possibly saved your life. Mine countless times. Natural disasters are of course what keeps most of us alive, no monsoons, earthquakes, or varying weather and we are guaranteed NO life..... But don't let these insignificant facts get in the way of your anger that God did not give you a nice cushy setup.... You see if everything was perfect is there any way you would ever be able to use your range of emotions? Will you know the difference between happy and sad in a perfect universe? Would you ever have to make a choice? Any choice at all?Andre
May 20, 2014
May
05
May
20
20
2014
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT
Like I said - OT WRT ID. There was talk about a Biblical Scripture text and thus the topic I was discussing was a theological one - not one pertaining to an ID nature. Like I also said, this argument is one strength of the creationist/literalist approach. As like a lot of evolutionists you are very blinkered in what you see/observe, you failed to see the heavy implication that I said such a belief has many other scientific problems with it. Well done on pointing out the observed current favoured scientific issues with this belief. You have basically done what I said is true already. "very good" and perfect are worth considering - perfect as in perfect for purpose perhaps but again if you take the literal approach it would most likely refer to moralistic (without sin) and without death, taking into context the whole Bible as a literal approach. I will emphasise again that there are certainly problems with the literal approach for sure. But it depends how you get there to believe or not believe that to be true. This is not a discussion of ID and I personally would not use ID in that context. It is a theological discussion.Dr JDD
May 20, 2014
May
05
May
20
20
2014
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT
I wish people would drop the idea that it was perfect. It was NEVER perfect to begin with because perfect means without flaw, if creation for whatever reason became corrupted then it could not have been perfect because there was a flaw. Secondly the idea that God can only create perfect things are by far the most stupid idea that humans could conjure up and here is why... If God could only do perfect designs he'd be pretty limited in His capability to do anything and everything He wants. He could then by that mere fact NOT be the maker of ALL things.Andre
May 20, 2014
May
05
May
20
20
2014
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT
Dr JDD I wanted to mention this to you in another post but I was unable to find it. You state that our genes are degenerative as well as creation as a whole because of the fall. Only one problem with that. There was never a fall or a prime couple. No origibnal sin either. Population genetics and the fossil record is clear that Adam & Eve didn't exist. The "evil" that we see all around is nothing but nature acting in accordance to what nature does. It's not good or bad, it just is. If your god did create using these methods that we see then he is either stupid or just doesn't care. YEC is a crock and we all know it. Therefore this "intelligent design" that we see was in existence before Homo Sapiens and it is his doing. Care to explain why your god would use such a painful and wasteful process that would use natural disasters and evolution to bring about his "very good" creation?JLAfan2001
May 20, 2014
May
05
May
20
20
2014
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT
Let me make clear that I don't claim to be sure of my conclusions in this post, they seem to me to fit the facts better than other ideas I have seen, but obviously speculation about how God works is theology, not science. The only thing I am sure of is that unintelligent forces alone cannot account for evolution (that is what part I of my video is about), beyond that I'm just speculating, like everyone else.Granville Sewell
May 20, 2014
May
05
May
20
20
2014
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT
OT WRT ID and on-topic WRT Judeo-Christian beliefs: While I agree with point #1, I disagree with point #2 from a hermeneutic point of view. If you are to take this verse on its own, it is very odd that a God as described in the Bible would need to "rest." However in the Bible things are often done or said by God in order to establish human pattern and outline a model. Therefore I would interpret this as not weariness from work but rather establishing from the beginning a 7-day week with the inherent ideology that man requires a day of rest. Other parts of the Bible also affirm that, in particular what Jesus states about the purpose of the Sabbath. What is interesting is that at the end of the time, no longer was it seen as just "good" but "very good". It is also interesting to note that throughout the whole Bible, the number 7 has always been used to symbolise completeness (unlike 6 which is the number associated with fallen man and the Devil). Whilst the creationists that takes a more literal interpretation of Genesis has a lot of things going against them apparently in the scientific world, one thing they do have very strongly going for them is the age old question posited by scientists that goes along the lines of: "If life was designed by a powerful Designer, why is it so full of faults and errors and 'bad' design?" Whilst many of those apparent "faults" or "bad designs" have over time been shown to actually moreso have the appearance of bad design bit in reality are very good design for purpose, the more literal interpretation of Genesis has an advantage here as following it literally will lead to belief that things were not created bad at first, however man's rebellion and sin caused a curse on man and on all creation. Note all - creation to encompass not simply life but the universe. The atmosphere, the celestial bodies...all creation. Therefore the presence of error, things not quite being right, and apparent bad design are quite easily explainable by that belief system. Furthermore, one can imagine a scenario where there had to be dramatic changes to even creation's DNA as if creation was perfect and there was no disease, no thorn or thistle, then plants and animals were very different, bacteria/viruses either did not exist or were very different to how they are today, and everything from ecology and the food chain was very different. Therefore actually over years of the "curse" we view a very degenerate creation around us, if of course, a literal interpretation is to be taken. That being said whilst this is perhaps a strength of a more literal creation interpretation of Genesis, there certainly are plenty of other apparent scientific difficulties with this belief system.Dr JDD
May 20, 2014
May
05
May
20
20
2014
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT
I understand the point that you are making and I think that there are similarities but as a creationist I reject the idea that God was improving his design over time. Any intelligence that can create a bacterium with its mind boggling complexity can create any of the rest of the various forms of life just as easy. To me the only possible question that could arise about the “evolution” of design would be the human mind but I doubt that is much of a problem either. The brain of an ape has all the basic physical functionality that the human mind does. The only difference that I see is how everything is put together and the relationships the different parts have with one another.fossil
May 20, 2014
May
05
May
20
20
2014
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PDT
I like this argument. If you subscribe to the Judeo-Christian viewpoint that man is made in the image of God, then it makes perfect sense to see the parallels between the way our Eternal Creator has shaped our universe and the way that mankind designs and builds.OldArmy94
May 20, 2014
May
05
May
20
20
2014
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply