Why “theistic evolution” should properly be called Christian Darwinism

_{Denyse O'Leary

June 2, 2013

Christian Darwinism, theistic evolution}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Science historian Michael Flannery kindly responded to something I (O’Leary for UD News) had written to a group of friends about theistic evolution (TE): “I prefer to call it ‘Christian Darwinism’ because the element that is not compatible with design (or Christianity) is the Darwinism.” His view:

Absolutely correct! The problem isn’t necessarily with common descent or evolution per se but with wholly random and chance mechanisms behind them. Darwinists (from Richard Dawkins on one end to Ken Miller on the other) constantly conflate this issue. So TE is really something of a misnomer that winds up working to their benefit.

Yes, the term “theistic evolution” does indeed work to TE’s benefit by blurring out all the meaning from the term “evolution.” God had a hand in it somehow, but what he did is unclear.

Ask and you’d be surprised what you’ll hear: For example, process theologian Karl Giberson helped found BioLogos, along with Francis Collins. Giberson and Collins offer in The Language of Science and Faith, (IVP Books, 2011):

… we hope readers will agree with us that the relevant part of our origins is not the story of how we acquired the specific details of our body plan—ten fingers, two ears, one nose—or how we lack a marsupial pouch to carry our newborns, or why potty-training takes so long. Nothing about these details is critical to what makes us human. Our humanness is embedded more holistically in our less tangible aspects and could certainly be embodied in creatures that looked nothing like us … (Karl W. Giberson and Francis S. Collins, The Language of Science and Faith: Straight Answers to Genuine Questions (InterVarsity Press, 2011), p. 201, p. 204–5.)

Why should they hope that readers will agree with them? Unless we believe in space alien fiction, there is zero current evidence for a proposition that that the details of the human form are not “the relevant part of our origins.” Maybe they are relevant. And it should hardly be necessary to point out that we are told by a more authoritative source that even the hairs of our heads are numbered.

Then Giberson and Collins resort to an airy ad hominem dismissal of those who prefer the more authoritative source:

Many may find this thought unsettling and strangely at odds with their understanding of creation, which celebrates that God created us “in his image.” We suggest that this is due to the influence that actual artistic images have had on our view of God and ourselves Because God became incarnate in Jesus, who looks like us, we all too quickly slip into the assumption that God also looks like us. (Karl W. Giberson and Francis S. Collins, The Language of Science and Faith: Straight Answers to Genuine Questions (InterVarsity Press, 2011), p. 201, p. 204–5.)

This is disingenuous. The question isn’t whether God looks like us—or for that matter, whether man can even look on God and live*— but whether God intends us to look the way we do, for good reasons.

On a Darwinist reckoning, no. On a Christian reckoning, yes.

Theistic evolution consists first and foremost in evading such direct choices, in order to accommodate Christianity to the fads and fashions of Darwin’s followers. And that is why I call it Christian Darwinism.

* On that subject, from another authoritative source: “But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.”

Comments

First the earth wasn’t created in six literal days. No one believes this anymore except the fundies
There is a subtle error in that logic. It suggests one must be a fundie first before becoming a YEC, though generally true, it is not always true. If someone is a scientist and his scientific judgment causes him to believe in a Young Earth, then that might make him a believer in YEC. Your insinuation is that the only basis for belief in YEC is belief in the Bible. That is incorrect. So there may be 2 types of people who are YECs: 1. they believe the Bible anyway, don't really know much of the science 2. the science convinces them of recent creation, hence it circumstantially makes the Bible believable You've insisted in #1 being representative of all cases. That is not correct. I'll give two examples. The first is John Sanford, who's works I've been implicitly writing about (like the Darwin Delusion thread). Sanford has done more for science and engineering than Dawkins, Sam Harris, PZ Myers, Eugenie Scott, Jerry Coyne, Daniel Dennett combined -- and by large margin. Almost all food in the grocery stores of the world had been influenced by his science. Here is Sanford reflecting on his formerly atheistic, Darwinistic, evolutionary beliefs:
In retrospect, I realize that I have wasted so much of my life arguing about things that don’t really matter. It is my sincere hope that this book can actually address something that really does matter. The issue of who we are, where we came from, and where we are going seem to me to be of enormous importance. This is the real subject of this book. Modern Darwinism is built on what I will be calling “The Primary Axiom”. The Primary Axiom is that man is merely the product of random mutations plus natural selection. Within our society’s academia, the Primary Axiom is universally taught, and almost universally accepted. It is the constantly mouthed mantra, repeated endlessly on every college campus. It is very difficult to find any professor on any college campus who would even consider (or should I say dare) to question the Primary Axiom. Late in my career, I did something which for a Cornell professor would seem unthinkable. I began to question the Primary Axiom. I did this with great fear and trepidation. By doing this, I knew I would be at odds with the most “sacred cow” of modern academia. Among other things, it might even result in my expulsion from the academic world. Although I had achieved considerable success and notoriety within my own particular specialty (applied genetics), it would mean I would have to be stepping out of the safety of my own little niche. I would have to begin to explore some very big things, including aspects of theoretical genetics which I had always accepted by faith alone. I felt compelled to do all this, but I must confess I fully expected to simply hit a brick wall. To my own amazement, I gradually realized that the seemingly “great and unassailable fortress” which has been built up around the primary axiom is really a house of cards. The Primary Axiom is actually an extremely vulnerable theory, in fact it is essentially indefensible. Its apparent invincibility derives mostly from bluster, smoke, and mirrors. A large part of what keeps the Axiom standing is an almost mystical faith, which the true-believers have in the omnipotence of natural selection. Furthermore, I began to see that this deep-seated faith in natural selection was typically coupled with a degree of ideological commitment which can only be described as religious. I started to realize (again with trepidation) that I might be offending a lot of people’s religion! To question the Primary Axiom required me to re-examine virtually everything I thought I knew about genetics. This was probably the most difficult intellectual endeavor of my life. Deeply entrenched thought pattern only change very slowly (and I must add — painfully). What I eventually experienced was a complete overthrow of my previous understandings. Several years of personal struggle resulted in a new understanding, and a very strong conviction that the Primary Axiom was most definitely wrong. More importantly, I became convinced that the Axiom could be shown to be wrong to any reasonable and open-minded individual. This realization was exhilarating, but again frightening. I realized that I had a moral obligation to openly challenge this most sacred of cows. In doing this, I realized I would earn for myself the most intense disdain of most of my colleagues in academia not to mention very intense opposition and anger from other high places. What should I do? It has become my conviction that the Primary Axiom is insidious on the highest level, having catastrophic impact on countless human lives. Furthermore, every form of objective analysis I have performed has convinced me that the Axiom is clearly false. So now, regardless of the consequences, I have to say it out loud: the Emperor has no clothes! To the extent that the Primary Axiom can be shown to be false, it should have a major impact on your own life and on the world at large. For this reason, I have dared to write this humble little book which some will receive as blasphemous treason, and others revelation. If the Primary Axiom is wrong, then there is a surprising and very practical consequence. When subjected only to natural forces, the human genome must irrevocably degenerate over time. Such a sober realization should have more than just intellectual or historical significance. It should rightfully cause us to personally reconsider where we should rationally be placing our hope for the future. John Sanford
and Richard Lumsdenscordova_{June 3, 2013
June
06
Jun
3
03
2013
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT}

"If it wasn’t science, it wouldn’t have been left a long time ago." Then by all means, since it is a science you should have no problem whatsoever finding the exact demarcation criteria so as to delineate it as a science. As stated before,
“On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?” (Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003)
I, on the other hand, have no problem showing you the demarcation criteria for ID:
Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information – Abel, Trevors Excerpt: Shannon information theory measures the relative degrees of RSC and OSC. Shannon information theory cannot measure FSC. FSC is invariably associated with all forms of complex biofunction, including biochemical pathways, cycles, positive and negative feedback regulation, and homeostatic metabolism. The algorithmic programming of FSC, not merely its aperiodicity, accounts for biological organization. No empirical evidence exists of either RSC of OSC ever having produced a single instance of sophisticated biological organization. Organization invariably manifests FSC rather than successive random events (RSC) or low-informational self-ordering phenomena (OSC).,,, Testable hypotheses about FSC What testable empirical hypotheses can we make about FSC that might allow us to identify when FSC exists? In any of the following null hypotheses [137], demonstrating a single exception would allow falsification. We invite assistance in the falsification of any of the following null hypotheses: Null hypothesis #1 Stochastic ensembles of physical units cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function. Null hypothesis #2 Dynamically-ordered sequences of individual physical units (physicality patterned by natural law causation) cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function. Null hypothesis #3 Statistically weighted means (e.g., increased availability of certain units in the polymerization environment) giving rise to patterned (compressible) sequences of units cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function. Null hypothesis #4 Computationally successful configurable switches cannot be set by chance, necessity, or any combination of the two, even over large periods of time. We repeat that a single incident of nontrivial algorithmic programming success achieved without selection for fitness at the decision-node programming level would falsify any of these null hypotheses. This renders each of these hypotheses scientifically testable. We offer the prediction that none of these four hypotheses will be falsified. http://www.tbiomed.com/content/2/1/29 Dembski’s original value for the universal probability bound is 1 in 10^150, 10^80, the number of elementary particles in the observable universe. 10^45, the maximum rate per second at which transitions in physical states can occur. 10^25, a billion times longer than the typical estimated age of the universe in seconds. Thus, 10^150 = 10^80 × 10^45 × 10^25. Hence, this value corresponds to an upper limit on the number of physical events that could possibly have occurred since the big bang. How many bits would that be: Pu = 10-150, so, -log2 Pu = 498.29 bits Call it 500 bits (The 500 bits is further specified as a specific type of information. It is specified as Complex Specified Information by Dembski or as Functional Information by Abel to separate it from merely Ordered Sequence Complexity or Random Sequence Complexity; See Three subsets of sequence complexity) Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information – Abel, Trevors http://www.tbiomed.com/content/2/1/29 This short sentence, “The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog” is calculated by Winston Ewert, in this following video at the 10 minute mark, to contain 1000 bits of algorithmic specified complexity, and thus to exceed the Universal Probability Bound (UPB) of 500 bits set by Dr. Dembski Proposed Information Metric: Conditional Kolmogorov Complexity – Winston Ewert – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fm3mm3ofAYU Michael Behe on Falsifying Intelligent Design – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A Stephen Meyer – Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4050681 Here is a general overview of the predictions for Intelligent Design: A Positive, Testable Case for Intelligent Design – Casey Luskin – March 2011 – several examples of cited research http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/a_closer_look_at_one_scientist045311.html A Response to Questions from a Biology Teacher: How Do We Test Intelligent Design? - March 2010 Excerpt: Regarding testability, ID (Intelligent Design) makes the following testable predictions: (1) Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns that perform a specific function (e.g. complex and specified information). (2) Forms containing large amounts of novel information will appear in the fossil record suddenly and without similar precursors. (3) Convergence will occur routinely. That is, genes and other functional parts will be re-used in different and unrelated organisms. (4) Much so-called “junk DNA” will turn out to perform valuable functions. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/03/a_response_to_questions_from_a.html On the Origin of Protein Folds - Jonathan M. - September 8, 2012 Excerpt: A common objection to the theory of intelligent design is that it makes no testable predictions, and thus there is no basis for calling it science at all. While recognizing that testability may not be a sufficient or necessary resolution of the "Demarcation Problem," my article, which I invite you to download, will consider one prediction made by ID and discuss how this prediction has been confirmed. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/09/on_the_origin_o_1064081.html
bornagain77_{June 3, 2013
June
06
Jun
3
03
2013
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT}

How exactly has Miller-Urey been falsified? Comparing evolution to crystallization is quite a stretch by the way. Evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life we see today.Joealtle_{June 3, 2013
June
06
Jun
3
03
2013
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT}

JLAfan2001, You do realize that all of what you think science says about history can be falsified some day. The science community once believed in an Eternal Universe and the Urey-Miller experiment, and lots of other things. Your hastiness to accept the majority just because they are the majority is not evidence of skepticism. Robert Hazen, an OOL research at my school, pointed out that Stanley Miller (of Urey-Miller fame) did his best to fight against evidence disconfirming of his theory, but his experiment has since been falsified by his peers. So, you're invited to keep believing what you do, and I respect that, but your faith in what the mainstream says may be overturned one day. A former professor at my alma mater was basically shown the door and called a quasi-scientist, but that changed 30 years later when he won the Nobel Prize for the very discovery that caused him to initially be labeled by the mainstream as a crank. His name is Dan Schectman. Many mainstream ideas are very good, but some are on a lot shakier empirical grounding than you suppose. Let's suppose you accept ID and are found mistaken, no big loss to you. But what if 30 years from now or a thousand years from now the science you swear by breaks down and at least one of the creation accounts postulated by various interpretations of the Bible turnout to be right. You'll really regret it. You being a Nihilist should know mainstream science can't save your soul. But, I'll offer this, if mainstream science is wrong, and you let it govern your life, to the extent it could be mistaken, it can take your soul. Is it worth that gamble? I'd say, being agnostic and skeptical at this point is a far better frame of mind considering that claims which seem so immutable today can be overturned by facts discovered tomorrow...scordova_{June 3, 2013
June
06
Jun
3
03
2013
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT}

If it wasn't science, it wouldn't have been left a long time ago. It has been observed, tested and predicted for 150 years and still stands as the best explanation for the evidence. I'm sorry if it doesn't fall in with your theology but life isn't fair. Believe me, I'm having a hard time facing this down myself but what can I do?JLAfan2001_{June 3, 2013
June
06
Jun
3
03
2013
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT}

JLAfan2001, since you are a 'smarter than thou' Darwinist who knows much, much, more than any Theist does, let's try to make this as simple as possible. You are trying to falsify Genesis with a theory that does not even qualify as a science! Do you see, with your highly evolved brain, the problem here?bornagain77_{June 3, 2013
June
06
Jun
3
03
2013
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT}

OT: Researchers discover a new way fish camouflage themselves in the ocean - June 3, 2013 Excerpt: Fish can hide in the open ocean by manipulating how light reflects off their skin, according to researchers at The University of Texas at Austin. The discovery could someday lead to the development of new camouflage materials for use in the ocean, and it overturns 40 years of conventional wisdom about fish camouflage. The researchers found that lookdown fish camouflage themselves through a complex manipulation of polarized light after it strikes the fishes' skin. In laboratory studies, they showed that this kind of camouflage outperforms by up to 80 percent the "mirror" strategy that was previously thought to be state-of-the-art in fish camouflage. http://phys.org/news/2013-06-fish-camouflage-ocean.html and: How Can Black Holes Be Detected? - video http://www.space.com/10257-black-holes-detected.htmlbornagain77_{June 3, 2013
June
06
Jun
3
03
2013
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT}

BA77 So all those other points I made don’t count? Only the Big Bang and Evolution is tied to Genesis. In your view science is pointing to a Big Bang so score for Genesis but you also think it’s pointing away from evolution so another score for Genesis. Isn’t that concordism? Apply what you feel speaks to the text and reject what you feel doesn’t. I believe Eric Anderson has cautioned not to put all the eggs in the Big Bang basket. So if it turns out to be false, Genesis is falsified but wait there is another option. Metaphor because it was never a science text. Can you spot the circular reasoning on your part, BA77? If the universe had a beginning then Genesis is validated. If not, it was never science to begin with. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. There are so many other holes in Christian theism that I’ve been finding.JLAfan2001_{June 3, 2013
June
06
Jun
3
03
2013
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT}

Here are cleaned up notes on 'randomness': Randomness - Entropic and Quantum https://docs.google.com/document/d/1St4Rl5__iKFraUBfSZCeRV6sNcW5xy6lgcqqKifO9c8/edit?usp=sharingbornagain77_{June 3, 2013
June
06
Jun
3
03
2013
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT}

JLAfan2001, you complain: "The creation account (of Genesis) can never be falsified." I disagree, show that the universe has always existed and Genesis account of creation would be neatly falsified. But let's turn this around to Darwinian evolution. Please show me the exact demarcation criteria by which Darwinism, which claims to be science, can be falsified: “nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific” – Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, quote as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture “On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?” (Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003) Macroevolution, microevolution and chemistry: the devil is in the details – Dr. V. J. Torley – February 27, 2013 Excerpt: After all, mathematics, scientific laws and observed processes are supposed to form the basis of all scientific explanation. If none of these provides support for Darwinian macroevolution, then why on earth should we accept it? Indeed, why does macroevolution belong in the province of science at all, if its scientific basis cannot be demonstrated? https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/macroevolution-microevolution-and-chemistry-the-devil-is-in-the-details/ or as Eric so clearly put it recently: "(Although atheists accuse Theists of making extraordinary claims) The truly extraordinary claim — indeed, the wildly and irresponsibly outrageous claim — is that a highly scalable, massively parallel system architecture incorporating a 4-bit digital coding system and a super-dense, information-rich, three-dimensional, multi-layered, multi-directional database structure with storage, retrieval and translation mechanisms, utilizing file allocation, concatenation and bit-parity algorithms, operating subject to software protocol hierarchies could all come about through a long series of accidental particle collisions. That is beyond extraordinary. It is preposterous. It is laughable." https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/naturalism-intelligent-design-and-extraordinary-claims-part-ii/ Thus JLAfan2001, why are you so critical of Genesis, which is not a scientific text by the way, but fail to even lift your pinky in protest to the fact that Darwinism does not have a metric by which to demarcate it as a science?bornagain77_{June 3, 2013
June
06
Jun
3
03
2013
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PDT}

Lamont Are you one of those guys who read Genesis metaphorically then? That’s the safest interpretation, isn’t it? Whenever science refutes Genesis, you can always fall back on the metaphor clause. The creation account can never be falsified. How do you know, then, this account is better than the Egyptians, Romans or Greeks? Their account can also be metaphor . Why would Moses write the account for his people at that time if the Bible is intended for all time? Wouldn’t it make sense for God to reveal creation exactly the way it happened so all can know it? Jguy My brain can’t help it because the current wiring in it is causing me to rant against Genesis. The current evolutionary way the brain is formed must show the truth of Nihilism which is the only truth. If it gets rewired to adapt to the environment then it will praise theism. The brain in your head is currently wired for theism. I can see three people who responded with three different views. BA77 is an IDist, Lamont is presumably a theistic evolutionist and Jguy is a young earth creationist. Gentleman, if Christianity is the truth, why do you hold three different views of creation? They can’t all be right. Either one is right or all are wrong. Which is the right one? Duke it out amongst yourselves and my brain will adapt to whoever the winner is.JLAfan2001_{June 3, 2013
June
06
Jun
3
03
2013
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT}

JLAfan2001 @ 23 Why are you so passionate to debate this topic all the time if there is no absolute, objective, inherent: meaning, value, purpose,morality, truth, logic, knowledge? Why would the music of your DNA - as Dawkins might say - compel you to dance in this debate? Shouldn't you be out and about finding mates to reproduce with? --- of course I'm not saying you should do those that, I'm just pointing out the obvious, that you don't live or act like you say you believe. There's a reason for that... and it isn't the music of DNA.JGuy_{June 3, 2013
June
06
Jun
3
03
2013
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT}

JLAfan2001 Your comment @23 is a good example of how not to read the Bible. Genesis in particular is not a list of cosmological and biological facts that we are capable of eventually discovering on our own, instead it is the revelation of the formal principles which underlie the creation process. For example when Genesis states that God formed man from the dust of the earth, only a small minded person would think that the statement is factual incorrect because our bodies are mostly made of water. What Genesis actually reveals to us is that we are body soul composites, and that God is responsible for both our bodies, even if they have been produced through a process of evolution, and our souls. Since our souls are immaterial and created directly by God there had to be a soul #1 and a soul #2. Hence Adam and Eve were the first true human beings even if there were other creatures on the earth at the same time that were biologically similar to them. The fact that you have an immaterial soul is something that you can know is certainly true by noticing the fact that your mind is capable of producing abstract immaterial concepts like justice, truth, morality, and many others which have no physical or material qualities. Material things like the brain can only produce material effects like feelings, sensations, and physical responses to stimuli. Immaterial concepts must necessarily have an immaterial source. That is why we can know with certainty that we were created by God.Lamont_{June 3, 2013
June
06
Jun
3
03
2013
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT}

By the way JLAfan2001, its been known for quite a while, as Walter Remine relates in this following interview, that sexual reproduction severely limits genetic variability rather than enhances it as Darwinists had originally thought. Walter ReMine on the Origin of Sexual Reproduction - interview http://kgov.com/ReMine-3 this following study concurs: Sex Is Not About Promoting Genetic Variation, Researchers Argue - (July 7, 2011) Excerpt: Biology textbooks maintain that the main function of sex is to promote genetic diversity. But Henry Heng, Ph.D., associate professor in WSU's Center for Molecular Medicine and Genetics, says that's not the case.,,, ,,,the primary function of sex is not about promoting diversity. Rather, it's about keeping the genome context -- an organism's complete collection of genes arranged by chromosome composition and topology -- as unchanged as possible, thereby maintaining a species' identity. This surprising analysis has been published as a cover article in a recent issue of the journal Evolution.,,, For nearly 130 years, traditional perceptions hold that asexual reproduction generates clone-like offspring and sexual reproduction leads to more diverse offspring. "In reality, however, the relationship is quite the opposite," said Heng.,,, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110707161037.htm ,,, Question JLAfan2001, why is Darwinism a fact instead of a hypothesis in your mind since Darwinian evolution has NEVER demonstrated to capacity to generate a single functional protein or molecular machine from scratch?bornagain77_{June 3, 2013
June
06
Jun
3
03
2013
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT}

JLAfan2001, Here's the study: Recombination Rates and Genomic Shuffling in Human and Chimpanzee—A New Twist in the Chromosomal Speciation Theory - April 2013 Excerpt: In fact, rearranged chromosomes presented significantly lower recombination rates than chromosomes that have been maintained since the ancestor of great apes, and this was related with the lineage in which they become fixed. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3603309/ Hard to 'spin' something that was the central finding of the study JLAfan2001.bornagain77_{June 3, 2013
June
06
Jun
3
03
2013
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT}

Sigh. BA77, I have said repeatedly that I don't trust YEC science or articles. They spin the results of mainstream science to match their beliefs. Even JoeCoder here has said Thompkins does as much. Also, why would you even frequent YEC sites when you have said yourself that you are not a YEC? This tells me that either A) You actually are a YEC or B) that you only visit sites, any sites, that support your faith which shows bias. Show me a mainstream science website that says the DNA similarities between humans and chimps has been refuted.JLAfan2001_{June 3, 2013
June
06
Jun
3
03
2013
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT}

Dang JLAfan2001, the bad news just keeps coming: Genetic Recombination Study Defies Human-Chimp Evolution by Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D. * - May 31, 2013 Excerpt: A recent study, published in the journal Molecular Biology and Evolution, evaluated various regions of the chimpanzee and human genomes for genetic recombination frequency by determining the DNA variability (differences) within large populations of both humans and chimpanzees.1 The researchers found that genetic recombination levels were much higher in regions of the genome between humans and chimps where sequence identity was higher. In the regions of much lower DNA similarity, which occur as differences in gene order, gene content, and other major DNA sequence differences—the recombination rates were much lower.,, These results are the exact opposite of what evolutionists expected. According to evolutionary reasoning, the chromosomal areas between humans and chimps that were the most different should have had high levels of genetic recombination that would help explain why they were so different. But these chromosomal areas that were the most different between humans and chimpanzees had the lowest levels! More recombination equals more evolutionary differences right? Apparently not! Once again, new scientific data has falsified a prominent evolutionary hypothesis. While this study failed to uphold the hypothetical predictions of evolution, it did vindicate the now well-established fact that genetic recombination is a highly regulated, and complex bio-engineered feature that helps create variability in just the right areas of the genome. Other recent research has shown that the human and chimpanzee genomes are radically different(70%).5 And now this new study has demonstrated that these differences are not due to a mythical evolutionary tinkering and shuffling process associated with genetic recombination, but because humans and chimps were created separately and uniquely. http://www.icr.org/article/7526/ You may need these JLAfan2001,, http://images.businessweek.com/ss/08/09/0918_best_brands/image/74-kleenex.jpgbornagain77_{June 3, 2013
June
06
Jun
3
03
2013
08:32 AM
8
08
32
AM
PDT}

I disagree with the premise of the article. Why? Simply put, not all theists profess to be Christians. Christians are a subset of the population of theists. There are a large number of theists that are darwinists, but not Christians.fmarotta_{June 3, 2013
June
06
Jun
3
03
2013
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT}

What is responsible for the evidence it not macro-evolution?
If you decide that you must see the Intelligent Designer face-to-face and see him in operation to decide that he exists, then I totally respect that. If you can accept indirect evidence, then it is possible to conclude an intelligent designer existed in the past. There an old saying in the game of cards, "play the hand you are dealt". It would be nice to see an intelligent designer in operation, and thus there would be no question of accepting his designing power. But an intelligence is not subject to our demands of repeating an event. That's not true of human affairs so why should it be true with the creation of life. If you can never accept ID without seeing the designer, then you might never accept ID, and I respect that. But recall the Urey-Miller experiment and how it could have lead to suicide? Do you really really want decide today that macro-evolution is true? If macro-evolution is false, it doesn't necessarily mean ID is true. But macro-evolution can be critiqued without finding and alternate explanation. We can know a theory is wrong without first finding a better theory to replace it. You don't need to demand an alternate explanation to know macro-evolution is wrong. Just because macro-evolution claims to explain certain phenomenon, doesn't mean its true. The fossil record doesn't affirm it at all, even Dawkins admits, the fossil record affirms special creation because of the absence of transitionals in the fossil record. You don't have to accept ID in order to see the claim of macro-evolution are false. In fact, on non-ID guy suggested independent origin of major forms. Lee Spetner said it well and it applies to Macro Evolution, to paraphrase him: "There are many legitimate reasons to be an atheist, the theory of evolution isn't one of them." NOTE: Spetner used the word Neo-Darwinism, but my paraphrase is still a truism independent of whether Spetner actually used those wordsscordova_{June 3, 2013
June
06
Jun
3
03
2013
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT}

Barb Sorry to say but Genesis has been shown to be wrong and I’ll explain why. 1) First the earth wasn’t created in six literal days. No one believes this anymore except the fundies. Let’s say that YOM does mean an unspecified amount of time. Is this what the author actually meant or are you reading modern science into the text? In Exodus, Moses states that God created the earth in six days so this shows he meant days not ages. 2) Science has shown that simple marine life came before plant life according to the fossil record. Genesis has plant life coming before marine life. 3) Genesis states that God created a firmament or expanse and in some translations refers to as dome. We now know that the earth is not surrounded by a dome. 4) The sun was created on the fourth day and science has shown that the earth was formed after the sun. 5) Whales were created at the same time as other marine life but the fossil record shows that whales evolved from land animals. 6) Birds were also created on the same day as marine life but the fossil record shows that birds evolved from small dinosaurs. 7) Man was not created form the dust of the ground but evolved from a common ancestor wit h the apes. 8) As I mentioned before, the fossils and DNA show that there was never a first couple. Mankind did not have language, morality and intelligence right off the bat. It evolved over time. These points falsify Genesis. Since Jesus and Paul mentioned a couple that didn’t exist, he couldn’t be the Son of God and the Bible can’t be inerrant. They also mentioned that they were formed at the beginning of creation which is not right since man came billions of years later.The guys at Biologos recognize this so it’s not an issue of materialist atheists trying to disprove the Bible. Genesis ends up being metaphor or analogy now. It seems to me that is a last ditch cop out to hold on to one’s faith rather than facing the ugly truth. Some people can do that, I can’t. Genesis has ended up being the Jewish creation myth alongside the Egyptians, Romans, Greeks and Norse. Again, if Jesus was wrong, the gospels have been shown false by quoting an incorrect doctrine. I know a lot of people will tell me that the fossil record is incomplete, lacks transitions etc as Optimus tried to do but it clearly shows simple to complex over time. Evolution explains that, creation states that they just appeared. Change in life forms happened over time whether we have every single fossil or not. Once again, what explains all the evidence if not Darwinian evolution. Nothing else come close.JLAfan2001_{June 3, 2013
June
06
Jun
3
03
2013
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PDT}

better link: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2001-02/NS-Tmoq-1302101.phpbornagain77_{June 3, 2013
June
06
Jun
3
03
2013
05:48 AM
5
05
48
AM
PDT}

footnote to 11 and 12 (i.e. quantum randomness and free will) In the beginning was the bit - New Scientist Excerpt: Zeilinger's principle leads to the intrinsic randomness found in the quantum world. Consider the spin of an electron. Say it is measured along a vertical axis (call it the z axis) and found to be pointing up. Because one bit of information has been used to make that statement, no more information can be carried by the electron's spin. Consequently, no information is available to predict the amounts of spin in the two horizontal directions (x and y axes), so they are of necessity entirely random. If you then measure the spin in one of these directions, there is an equal chance of its pointing right or left, forward or back. This fundamental randomness is what we call Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. http://www.quantum.at/fileadmin/links/newscientist/bit.htmlbornagain77_{June 3, 2013
June
06
Jun
3
03
2013
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PDT}

@JLA It would help if your comments were a little more specific, describing what exactly it is that constitutes compelling evidence that is explicable solely by Neo-Darwinism. It's late where I am, so I'll limit my response to a few of the classes of evidence you point to:
1) Fossil record 2) DNA similarity between species
1. The fossil record is by no means supportive of the gradualism necessitated by the Neo-Darwinian view. Many paleontologists (by no means ID supporters) acknowledge that the fossil record shows stasis, significant morphological difference, and extinction. 2. DNA similarity between species is often pointed to as decisive evidence in favor of macroevolution. Unfortunately, the legitimacy of inferring phylogenies based on sequence data is critically contingent on whether or not evolutionary mechanisms are capable of generating significant change in the first place! In other words, using DNA similarity between organisms as evidence of relatedness without invoking independent evidence in favor of Neo-Darwinism assumes what needs to be proven. Unless we already know that large-scale evolutionary transitions occur, DNA similarity tells us nothing about the mechanism that generates that similarity. Now the objection often comes up that by denying the propriety of using DNA to generate phylogenies one also calls into question things like DNA paternity testing. This is false for at least one significant reason. When using DNA to determine relatedness between two human beings, we do so against the background knowledge that human beings come from other human beings. It's so simple and obvious that we often forget this critical point. There's absolutely nothing conjectural about the proposition that a father and mother produce children who will be genetically similar to their parents. It happens many thousands of times a day. We have overwhelming empirical evidence to assure us that this method of determining relatedness is sound. The situation is very different, however, when it comes to using DNA to determine the relationship between very different organisms (lets say a bear and a dolphin). What background knowledge do we possess that allows us to say with confidence that there's a process that can derive bears and dolphins from a common ancestor? Has anyone ever observed anything even remotely approaching that sort of process? The answer is simply, "No." No one has ever made any experimental observation that justifies the certainty in common ancestry between all organisms, standing in stark contrast to our certainty that humans come from other humans. The success of using DNA to establish relationships within a species has no relevance to using DNA to determine inter-species relationships. I think your list is instructive because it highlights a persistent problem in these sorts of discussions, namely confusing actual data with the hypotheses proposed to explain the data. Common ancestry is the hypothesis not the data. That's my 2 cents anyway.Optimus_{June 3, 2013
June
06
Jun
3
03
2013
12:12 AM
12
12
12
AM
PDT}

JLAfan2001:
We have more evidence for evolution than we do that Jesus actually said that.
No, actually, you don't.
If Jesus did say that, it’s probably because of his being taught the old testament as a child and not because he was the son of God.
He probably was taught the "old testament" in childhood; he was found in the temple at age 12, posing questions to the Jewish religious leaders. This does not preclude his also being the Son of God.
Since we have evidence that Genesis is clearly wrong, Jesus was also wrong about Adam & Eve which means he wasn’t who he said he was and the gospels have been falsified.
You have no evidence that Genesis is clearly wrong, and you have no evidence that the gospels have been falsified.Barb_{June 2, 2013
June
06
Jun
2
02
2013
08:48 PM
8
08
48
PM
PDT}

As human beings, we were never content with our creaturliness per se....we wanted more. "You will be like God" was the temptation. Talk about the ultimate end of an evolutionary process....oops.....there is no end or goal since it is all utterly random.Johnnymack_{June 2, 2013
June
06
Jun
2
02
2013
08:38 PM
8
08
38
PM
PDT}

"Modern Synthesis Of Neo-Darwinism Is False – Denis Nobel – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/10395212/" Although I found the video interesting, one man's opinion doesn't over turn an entire field of science. Also, both you and Eric didn't answer my question. What is responsible for the evidence it not macro-evolution?JLAfan2001_{June 2, 2013
June
06
Jun
2
02
2013
06:12 PM
6
06
12
PM
PDT}

JLAfan2001:
I just want ONE thing that explains my list other than macro evolution.
Oh, you mean that hypothetical, never-observed, theoretical macroevolution that supposedly builds all the things on your list using -- you guessed it -- those molecular machines that have never been shown to arise through purely natural processes.
ONE thing that can be tested and observed by science.
You mean, in contrast to macroevolution, which has never observed?Eric Anderson_{June 2, 2013
June
06
Jun
2
02
2013
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PDT}

JLAfan2001, to call my hand you would actually have to put the evidence on the table of a molecular machine being produced by Darwinian processes! ,,, You haven't played poker much have you? But anyways, since you don't want links, I'll simply say that I've looked at everything in your list and find it wanting, (save for perhaps for your claim of leg coding genes of coelacanth which is laughable for you to cite as evidence for Darwinism in that particular living fossil). More to the point, I have found all you evidence to rest on undisciplined imagination rather than on empirical confirmation (as is the cornerstone of modern science!). That is why I called your bluff and I asked you for an actual demonstration of a molecular machine arising from neo-Darwinian processes. Ask yourself JLAfan2001, why can't you produce even one example of what I ask for? Also of note, I raise you again and claim that the reductive materialism, upon which neo-Darwinism is built, is falsified by the finding of quantum entanglement within molecular biology on a massive scale, and I hold that the modern synthesis of neo-Darwinism, which you are defending by the way, is falsified by advances in science: Got to list one link at least :) Modern Synthesis Of Neo-Darwinism Is False - Denis Nobel - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/10395212/bornagain77_{June 2, 2013
June
06
Jun
2
02
2013
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT}

BA77 You seem to be very fond of your molecular machines and your proteins. I call your bluff now. What is the best explanation for: 1) Fossil record 2) DNA similarity between species 3) Chromosome 2 fusion 4) Vitamin C pseudogene 5) Homology in species 6) Embryology 7) Bio-geography 8) ERVs 9) Simple to complex lifeforms in the strata 10)teeth coding genes in chickens 11) leg coding genes in coelacanth 12) FOXP2 genes in mammals I don't want another long list of links and sites and quotes (I bet you will still so it anyway). I just want ONE thing that explains my list other than macro evolution. ONE thing that can be tested and observed by science. No "And God said 'poof, there it is" allowed. How do explain all that?JLAfan2001_{June 2, 2013
June
06
Jun
2
02
2013
04:26 PM
4
04
26
PM
PDT}

JLAfan2001 you claim,,,
"We have more evidence for evolution than we do that Jesus actually said that."
Really? I call your bluff! Show me just one molecular machine arising by neo-Darwinian processes! in spite of the fact of finding molecular motors permeating the simplest of bacterial life, there are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of even one such motor or system.
"There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation of such a vast subject." James Shapiro - Molecular Biologist Michael Behe - No Scientific Literature For Evolution of Any Irreducibly Complex Molecular Machines http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5302950/ Molecular Machines: - Michael J. Behe Excerpt: JME is a journal that was begun specifically to deal with the topic of how evolution occurs on the molecular level. It has high scientific standards, and is edited by prominent figures in the field.,,, In the past ten years JME has published 886 papers. Of these, 95 discussed the chemical synthesis of molecules thought to be necessary for the origin of life, 44 proposed mathematical models to improve sequence analysis, 20 concerned the evolutionary implications of current structures, and 719 were analyses of protein or polynucleotide sequences. here were zero papers discussing detailed models for intermediates in the development of complex biomolecular structures. This is not a peculiarity of JME. No papers are to be found that discuss detailed models for intermediates in the development of complex biomolecular structures in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, Nature, Science, the Journal of Molecular Biology or, to my knowledge, any journal whatsoever. http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mm92496.htm “The response I have received from repeating Behe's claim about the evolutionary literature, which simply brings out the point being made implicitly by many others, such as Chris Dutton and so on, is that I obviously have not read the right books. There are, I am sure, evolutionists who have described how the transitions in question could have occurred.” And he continues, “When I ask in which books I can find these discussions, however, I either get no answer or else some titles that, upon examination, do not, in fact, contain the promised accounts. That such accounts exist seems to be something that is widely known, but I have yet to encounter anyone who knows where they exist.” David Ray Griffin - retired professor of philosophy of religion and theology Calling Nick Matzke's literature bluff on molecular machines - DonaldM UD blogger - April 2013 Excerpt: So now, 10 years later in 2006 Matzke and Pallen come along with this review article. The interesting thing about this article is that, despite all the hand waving claims about all these dozens if not hundreds of peer reviewed research studies showing how evolution built a flagellum, Matzke and Pallen didn’t have a single such reference in their bibliography. Nor did they reference any such study in the article. Rather, the article went into great lengths to explain how a researcher might go about conducting a study to show how evolution could have produced the system. Well, if all those articles and studies were already there, why not just point them all out? In shorty, the entire article was a tacit admission that Behe had been right all along. Fast forward to now and Andre’s question directed to Matzke. We’re now some 17 years after Behe’s book came out where he made that famous claim. And, no surprise, there still is not a single peer reviewed research study that provides the Darwinian explanation for a bacterial flagellum (or any of the other irreducibly complex biological systems Behe mentioned in the book). We’re almost 7 years after the Matzke & Pallen article. So where are all these research studies? There’s been ample time for someone to do something in this regard. Matzke will not answer the question because there is no answer he can give…no peer reviewed research study he can reference, other than the usual literature bluffing he’s done in the past. https://uncommondescent.com/irreducible-complexity/andre-asks-an-excellent-question-regarding-dna-as-a-part-of-an-in-cell-irreducibly-complex-communication-system/#comment-453291
of related note to the fact that Darwinists have ZERO empirical evidence of Darwinian processes EVER producing a molecular machine, there are several examples that intelligence can do as such. Here is one example:
(Man-Made) DNA nanorobot – video https://vimeo.com/36880067
JLAfan2001 you also claim,,,
"Since we have evidence that Genesis is clearly wrong, Jesus was also wrong about Adam & Eve which means he wasn’t who he said he was and the gospels have been falsified."
Really? I call your bluff again! Show me just one other ancient religious text, that did not copy the Bible, that got the ex-nihilo, transcendent, origin of the universe correct: It is very interesting to note that among all the 'holy' books, of all the major religions in the world, only the Holy Bible was correct in its claim for a transcendent origin of the universe. Some later 'holy' books, such as the Mormon text "Pearl of Great Price" and the Qur'an, copy the concept of a transcendent origin from the Bible but also include teachings that are inconsistent with that now established fact. (Hugh Ross; Why The Universe Is The Way It Is; Pg. 228; Chpt.9; note 5)
The Uniqueness Of The Bible Among 'holy books' and Evidence of God in Creation (Hugh Ross) – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjYSz1OYG8Y The Most Important Verse in the Bible - Prager University - video http://www.prageruniversity.com/Religion-Philosophy/The-Most-Important-Verse-in-the-Bible.html The best data we have [concerning the Big Bang] are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the bible as a whole. Dr. Arno Penzias, Nobel Laureate in Physics - co-discoverer of the Cosmic Background Radiation - as stated to the New York Times on March 12, 1978 “Certainly there was something that set it all off,,, I can’t think of a better theory of the origin of the universe to match Genesis” Robert Wilson – Nobel laureate – co-discover Cosmic Background Radiation “There is no doubt that a parallel exists between the big bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing.” George Smoot – Nobel laureate in 2006 for his work on COBE "Now we see how the astronomical evidence supports the biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy." Robert Jastrow – Founder of NASA’s Goddard Institute – Pg.15 ‘God and the Astronomers’ ,,, 'And if you're curious about how Genesis 1, in particular, fairs. Hey, we look at the Days in Genesis as being long time periods, which is what they must be if you read the Bible consistently, and the Bible scores 4 for 4 in Initial Conditions and 10 for 10 on the Creation Events' Hugh Ross - Evidence For Intelligent Design Is Everywhere; video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4347236
Now that I have called your bluffs JLAfan2001, and shown that you holding ZERO empirical evidence for evolution, I raise you for all the money on the table and claim that the fact that Jesus rose from the dead has empirical confirmation in the Shroud of Turin:
Turin Shroud Hologram Reveals The Words 'The Lamb' - short video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4041205
Music and Verse:
Empty (Empty Cross Empty Tomb) with Dan Haseltine Matt Hammitt (Music Inspired by The Story) http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=F22MCCNU Acts 2:24 But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him.
bornagain77_{June 2, 2013
June
06
Jun
2
02
2013
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply