This post is an answer to a comment by JP on the ever popular Ron Paul on Evolution post. His post was so long the reply needs it’s own post. I’ve tried to keep my replies brief, but if that lead to me being less than clear on something, please ask in the comments. And before I begin, let me thank you, JP, for the well thought out comment and the “let us reason together” attitude you bring to the table. It’s refreshing. Okay, here we go:
(1) Should we be engaged in a logical discussion, then both sides are obligated to create a logical construct for their position. So, for example, arguments that challenge the validity of a creator are not “proof” of evolution nor vice versa. To establish your position, you must do more than provide challenges to your opponents position — you must construct your own.
I agree. In a formal debate, at least. However, in a non-formal discussion that tends to erupt on blogs, a point - counter-point style is fine with me. Yes, it can drag out for a while. But I don’t have time to write a thesis on why creationism is true. I’m also not sure it’s necessary, because so many have already done a better job online than I could ever hope of doing.
(2) Evolution is not a theory that explains the origins of life. It explains the development of life. A person who believes in Evolution is entitled to believe whatever they want when it comes the big bang or the process of abiogenesis (organic/living matter from non-living matter) — this proof requires an entirely different construct.
You are right, despite the title “The Origin of Species” by Charles Darwin, Evolution is not a theory that explains the original origin of life. And you are right again, that a person is entitled to believe whatever they wish.
(3) Cartesian (or Absolute) Proof is unachievable on either side of this discussion. Why? Science rarely, and I would posit, never deals in “absolute proof”; of course, it may deal in truth beyond any rational disagreement, but it would not be “absolute” — it’s just part of the scientific experience and method; the same too is true of faith in general and Christianity in particular; there is no absolute proof of God, Jesus’ rising, etc (save if we were disciples for the rising — and almost not even that for Thomas), the Trinity, etc. If there was, it would require no FAITH to believe in it. Yet Faith, belief in that which we either cannot see or cannot fully understand (no Christian fully understands in His entirety, the Divine Trinity), is essential to a spiritual or Christian side. So let us not bandy around presumed victories of “logic” by demonstrating that the other side has not “absolutely” proven its argument.
An excellent point. One I fail often to make. Let me also say it’s refreshing to see someone from your side admit those things. Most evolutionist I encounter here are unwilling to admit that.
(4) As mentioned above, the word theory in the scientific realm is not simply a hypothesis. Rather a theory is a broad explanation which provides the mechanism for harmonizing those “known facts” (as best as we can know them) which science has uncovered through the scientific method, which you yourself seem to view at valid at least as it pertains to, say, gravity. A theory, of course, is subject to refinement, development and even at some point, contradiction. However, the more facts that a theory explains — the more accepted the theory becomes. So, whereas a fact (i.e. the car is red) may be provable by several tests, a theory is supported and established by hundreds, thousands, even millions of facts. Thus, theories are both (1) more difficult to discuss for laypersons especially because they encompass so many practice areas; and (2) may be even more supported (in core principles) then “facts”. Evolution is a well-accepted and tested theory — this should, at least, give any thinking person significant pause before its dismissal.
I will concede that evolution is a well accepted (by many - but not as many as we would believe) and tested theory. However, it’s taught not as a theory but as fact to most lay-people (I would lump myself in that bunch — I am clearly not a scientist). It was taught to me in Jr. High as fact. And as long as it’s prevalent in the modern scientific world - it needs to be taught in schools - along with the problems with the theory. There are some on my side that disagree - but I have no problem teaching kids the facts and letting them find the truth.
(5) Macro vs. Micro Evolution. This is a fascinating concept and I think its not disputed that “micro evolution” has much more evidentiary support, at least to a lay person. That said, a few points. One, there is a dispute whether there is actually any true difference between micro and macro evolution, or whether this is a false dichotomy. A man created separation that simply does not reflect the reality of evolutionary development. This is mainly because macro evolution is thought to be interspecies evolution while micro evolution is intra-species. Yet, the definition of species is a disputed concept within in the scientific community — i.e. is it simply that two creatures can no longer mate successfully, if so, how do we treat organisms that reproduce asexually? So, at least as a starting point, those who oppose evolution may be establishing a false construct, and then using this faulty construct to discredit evolution. Two, evolution of microorganisms is well-observed. We see it all the time — as mentioned though, this is asexual reproduction so you may simply view it as micro not macro — but, as noted, this may just be the result of a faulty definition. To be fair, this definition is disputed by professionals and lay persons alike. Two, there is evidence for evolution in several different scientific fields — evolution is not only evidenced by bone structure. Genetic research on DNA, and especially Mitochondrial DNA, are indicators that living creatures are intimately related to one another, and that certain members of species dominate the reproduction process (i.e. survival of the fittest). Chemistry demonstrates the proteins and chemical structures that are common to both men, apes and most basic protozoa. Archaelogy uncovers — and I will address what you consider a lacking record in a bit — structures in different animals that are identical, or closely related, despite the fact that (i) the structure is used (if still used) for very different purposes; and (2) the animals exist in dramatically different environments. i.e. the human hand and whale fins…whale fins have finger bones. These features — and I forget the technical name for them — have been observed over and over and over again.
Another excellent point. And it highlights a change in my own understanding (or lack thereof). When I started the Ron Paul post I argued from a couple misconceptions on my part (this will be shocking to some readers - ha). 1. I was unaware of anyone thought macro- was a false dichotomy and 2. I believed there had never been any new species observed (this was/is false: http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/403/).
Now, here is a question — well observed. Well why don’t we see more macro evolution in the fossil record. And lets take a fair definition of macro evolution — speciation. And let’s say speciation means that animals that once could procreate are, now, due to evolution changes unable to procreate. The problem here is that how would an archaeologist demonstrate that two animals with similar structures (horse and specie akin to horse) were unable to create viable offspring. That is hard because there may not be sufficient evidence in merely the fossils to demonstrate such a conclusion — all the soft tissue is GONE. So, the very definition of macro evolution may be antithetical to uncovering evidence in support of it — the false (or incomplete) dichotomy of reproduction as the species barrier may be the issue.
Speciation is the proper term. However, that’s not how I understand evolution to teach speciation. It’s not merely about an animal’s (or organism) inability to procreate. It’s about addition of new genetic material or mutation or as one site put it “Speciation is a lineage-splitting event that produces two or more separate species.” (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_42). And there’s my problem with evolution. I was wrong to say there are no new species and was someone wrong to say there is no evidence of transitional lifeforms. There is, but its all down-hill.
Here’s my bottom line: There is no evidence (i know of) for the production of any new genes by mutation (the imagined mechanism of molecules-to-man evolution). There is plenty of evidence of speciation (on a micro or adaptation level) but this is always the result from selection of genes that already exist. There is no biblical contradiction concerning the loss of genetic information.
(6) The Bible. Well now, the question arises — how can I believe in Evolution (or something akin to it) and believe in the Bible. One, I have never met a Christian who takes the entire Bible literally. Now, people purport to but I have never met a Christian who does. If we take our brief gander at Leviticus: it would seem the literal Christian would be hard-pressed not to stone to death: those who have cursed their father in mother, people who have committed adultery and homosexuals. Many Christians also believe in consubstantiation not transubstantiation (Eucharist is literally Christ’s body)– yet the Bible literally says “this is my body” — if it be his body, how can a literalist argue that it is not his body or it is “metaphorical”. This can go on and on. I myself am not a literalist.
Why? Jesus himself spoke in parables. Was there really a Prodigal Son? I’m sure there have been many, but Jesus spoke in story. By doing so, he gave his stories greater depth and greater meaning, especially to those willing to listen to him.At some level, I think you see it as perverse to “read into” Scripture metaphor and allegory. Yet, metaphor and allegory is what Jesus himself gave us..how he himself taught us how a Christian should act. And given the glory of the Word, I shudder to think that it is just some flat writing to which no thought or further depth applies or can even be given. God gave us his Word, but his Word is both accessible yet infinitely informative and complex. Not complex in a negative way, but complex in a way that repeated study gives way to greater understanding, greater subtlety. This to me provides me with the belief that metaphor and allegory are essential parts of the Bible — they are not “untrue” - they are descriptive of a greater, Infinite truth.
I would be defined as a literalist. Where the Bible is literal you should take it as such. Likewise with the poetry, allegorical and historical sections. A good rule of thumb is who was the author and who was the intended primary recipient of the book. It was clear that when Jesus said it is better for you to pluck out your eye, that he didn’t mean that literally. And yes, Christ spoke in parables often - with literal applications. But Christ did speak literally as well. And in the context of this discussion Genesis was written to be a historical book. It is not allegory, nor does it claim to be. It is meant to be a book of origins.
You ask the question of death — appropriately so because sin is the wages of death. Let me be fanciful.
I ask, because we will all die one day, baring Christ’s return.
Physical death is that to which a flawed physical creation can most understand. Yet, the most important of deaths — the death caused by the sins of Adam and Eve — were the death of our eternal life in God. We were cast out into the wilderness and it required Christ’s redemption (his physical death and resurrection) to conquer the spiritual death (not the death of our souls but the death of our “entitlement” to be with the Divine Trinity) that man had brought upon himself and the world. It was this spiritual death — this break from our divine relation to God that cast evil upon the world. Not surprisingly, the Bible is couched with the term death — which we understand as physical death — because this death is so immediately and innately understood and feared — thus we taste only the barest consequence of this separation with God. Why is this believable according to the Bible? We still die…we (Christians, et al) still die our physical death despite the fact that our sin has been paid for in Christ. It was not physical death Christ conquered…it was our spiritual death that he conquered. But beautifully — even metaphorically — he did it while conquering our basest fear as humans, physical death.
It was both. The sin of Adam and Eve resulted in our spiritual and physical deaths. Without it, they would have lived forever. As will we upon the return of Christ. Both physically and spiritually. But I am glad you know that part. Am I to conclude then that you are a born-again believer? Or do you just fully understand the basics of of biblical gospel?
December 31st, 2007 at 1:46 pm
“Here’s my bottom line: There is no evidence (i know of) for the production of any new genes by mutation (the imagined mechanism of molecules-to-man evolution). There is plenty of evidence of speciation (on a micro or adaptation level) but this is always the result from selection of genes that already exist. There is no biblical contradiction concerning the loss of genetic information.”
I rather stumbled onto this blog/forum, so I doubt I will become a regular poster, but for the moment, I thought you might find some clarification on the above point informative.
Put simply, heritable information is added constantly. In fact, the number of examples are so extensive that I find it very odd to hear the “no gain of information” argument so often. For one thing, changes in gene combination or regulation represent additions of information. It is not addition of genes, of course, but you specifically used the term “information” and permutations add information in biological systems. In fact, massive structural changes can occur in a lineage without any new genes at all. Permutations are more than sufficient for much of the morphological change we see. However, ultimately, in the big scheme of things, the range of variation would be limited without the addition of new genes, which is what you alluded to secondarily. Gene duplication is extremely widespread. Once a gene is duplicated, the copy often diverges from the original ancestral gene, becoming a new gene and “new information” in the strict manner you refer to. In fact, this is so common that those altered duplicates have a special category: they are called paralogs.
In some lineages, whole genomes get copied and then diverge. Copying of the genome is called polyploidy, and it is especially common in plants, though also seen in some mammalian lineages, and some diapsids (lizards, snakes, etc).
One last note: I notice that you like the term “molecules-to-man” evolution. While this has become a popular term, I would be careful with it for two reasons. 1) It implies a thin-strand causality leading from an ancestral molecule to modern humans, while biological reality is much less deterministic and more probalistic in nature 2) It reinforces the mythos that humans are somehow the endpoint of biological processes or objectively more complex than other organisms. In fact, biologically speaking, we cannot pick one organism as being “most complex”, ourselves included.
Cheers,
–MBH
December 31st, 2007 at 2:41 pm
MBH, thanks for your comment. This link may help answer your questions better than I can. Do new functions arise by gene duplication?
I also like “goo-to-you” and “our cousin the squirrel”
While much more sarcastic and not as civil. I do, however, think “molecules-to-man” is exactly what people think of when they say “yeah, I believe in evolution.” The purpose of the phrase is really to make people see what they are really thinking. Evolution is a nice word with a some neat power-point slides, but when you press lay people who say they believe it, they really start to have trouble believing we came from really thick vegetable soup.
December 31st, 2007 at 6:07 pm
I love “goo-to-you”; that’s really hilarious.
I completely accept that lay people have trouble swallowing the idea of physical mechanisms in human origins, or that life in general had such humble beginnings. The thing is, we cannot test such ideas for accuracy by whether or not they make us queasy. The key concern is that scientific information and explanations rely on physical evidence; our personal sensibilities are not a test of accuracy. At the same time, we should not let ourselves fall into the trap of assuming that personal aesthetic principles are somehow insulted by a knowledge of physical processes.
I have posted a more specific reply on the other thread. I may not wander this way again for a while, so take care and enjoy your New Year; I hope it’s a blast. I wish everyone reading a safe and happy start to the new calendar.
Take care,
–MBH
December 31st, 2007 at 7:49 pm
A species is not necessarily the same thing as a “Genesis kind”. At the Creation Museum in Cincinnati, they say that tigers and lions had a common ancestor, camels and llamas had a common ancestor, etc. They even say some “Genesis kinds” contain hundreds of species. God does not necessarily classify things the way a man does (especially if the man is an evolutionist). Neanderthal man is still classified as a separate species, but creationists believe that it is just another race of human beings.
We know from Genesis 1 that God did create these distinct kinds separately. They did not just evolve from one kind, even though there can be variations within one kind. Creationists can disagree to some extent about what the kinds are (whether or not two species are members of the kind) because Genesis 1 does not list specific kinds.
However, there are other places in the Bible where some specific kinds are mentioned. In the King James Version, there are several verses in Leviticus 11 which use the phrase “after its kind” in reference to a specific animal kind. Modern versions, such as the NIV, water down these passages. But the phrase “after its kind” in Leviticus 11 is translated from the same Hebrew word as it is in Genesis 1.
Keep taking the Bible literally. Don’t let anyone convince you to water it down. I think that we will find out in heaven that the Bible is more literal than what anyone expected.
Your above link “Do new functions arise by gene duplication?” looks very interesting. Thanks for this interesting discussion.
December 31st, 2007 at 9:59 pm
Ron,
As a layman, just as you are, I cannot always competently comment on a link to a semi-technical exposition such as you have produced on the matter of gene duplication. I will comment that I would assent to some of the basic premises (namely that gene duplication rarely leads to functional differentiation, for the three reasons suggested by the authors), and dissent from their claim that it a prediction of a model that includes gene duplication for new functionality in an organism is that gene count will “proportionally increase with [new functionality]” (original authors used the term “complexity” - which can be a problematic term in this discussion).
But, I cannot presume to rebut the authors point by point.
What I can do is provide a couple of links from authors more competent than I that suggest they are mistaken.
1) is just a randomly picked example of what researchers have identified as new functionality through gene duplication (pdf).
2) is another
So… you have suggestions about why one shouldn’t expect a whole lot of evolution through gene duplication (though they are somewhat tenuous, by my analysis), and I have a couple of instances where it appears exactly that has happened. But it doesn’t really pay, I don’t think, for we laymen to get too hung up on technical details. I think we can have this debate without getting our doctorates first… don’t you?
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:13 am
Yes, I am sure we can keep this on a simple lay-level. Before we start this debate blog-to-blog, I’d like to figure out exactly what you are thinking.. IM me sometime.
January 6th, 2008 at 11:57 am
There’s a bit of confusion in terminology and context here. Evolution is both a theory and a fact: those two things are not in conflict (things like common descent are well established facts, things like natural selection are the theories that explain these facts). The problem is simply that they have different meanings in scientific vs. layperson context.
In a layperson context, evolution is a fact inasmuch as anything is. In science, we often don’t use the word fact, and when we do, we don’t mean “absolutely certain” we just mean “as well established by the current evidence as anything can be.” As you probably know, in a layperson context “theory” means guess or supposition, but in science and math it actually means a systematic body of explanation, not anything about its certainty or reliability (note that number theory, in math, is deductively provable from its axioms: pretty much 100% certainty, and it’s still called number “theory”).
The “molecules to man” description is misleading for another reason as yet unmentioned: it implies that evolution says that we change from one thing into a completely new thing. But this is not the case at all. We are still made of molecules. We are still “goo (in the sense of what made that goo distinctive from everything else at the time).” Evolution predicts descent with modification, not one thing from another, and understanding what that really means is key to understanding how the evidence for it all stacks up.
January 20th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Ron,
You wrote:
>I will concede that evolution is a well accepted (by many - but not as many as we would believe) and tested theory. However, it’s taught not as a theory but as fact to most lay-people (I would lump myself in that bunch — I am clearly not a scientist). It was taught to me in Jr. High as fact.
Let me add some specifics to Bad’s comment.
First, I know of no competent scientist who denies evolution. There may conceivably be one or two someplace in the world (though I doubt it, and I’ve looked): if there were more than a tiny few, I would certainly know of some of them.
Second, we scientists (as I’ve mentioned, I have a Ph.D. from Stanford) routinely refer to the heliocentric theory (i.e., the fact that the earth goes around the sun), the atomic theory (the fact that ordinary matter is made of atoms), etc.
For some reason, ordinary American usage has diverged from scientific usage here: I think that the scientific usage of “theory” was actually the original meaning of the term, though I’m not sure of that.
The real problem is not that you were taught evolution as a fact – it is in fact a much better established fact than the fact that the earth moves around the sun.
The problem is that you were not taught that fact much earlier than Jr. High. If you had been taught that much earlier, you might have had time to also be taught all of the relevant science that backs up the fact of evolution and proves that it is true.
But then I assume you were educated in the American “public” (i.e., government) schools?
This is one of the main reasons I am homeschooling my kids – we started on evolution, and the evidence for it, in kindergarten.
Dave M. in Sacramento
January 26th, 2008 at 10:15 am
smijer said he had an “example of what researchers have identified as new functionality through gene duplication”. I checked this link . There is nothing in it that proves that new functionality arose spontaneously from gene duplication. The article presuposes that human, Old World monkeys, and New World monkeys had a common ancestor. Any similarities in gene sequences are not necessarily proof of common ancestry (as opposed to a common Creator).
But even if the type of monkey which has improved color vision has a common ancestor with those that don’t, this does not necessarily mean that this gene arose by duplication and modification. The genes which supposedly arose from duplicated genes could have been there from the beginning, and then could have lost from the genomes of those that don’t have it (by unequal chromosome crossover or other such mechanism).
Finally, even if such new functionality can arise in this way, this does not disprove the inerrancy of Scripture (literally interpreted). The burden of proof is on the evolutionist to prove that there is an example of two genesis kinds that had a common ancestor. Claims that humans evolved from apes are totally unverifiable.
March 1st, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Having not read all of the material here OR being fully qualified to comment on much of it, I still want to leave a couple of comments.
My first is to say that I appreciate this website and wish more people who know the Lord would attempt to shed some light on today’s issues.
Christ leaves Christians here to be salt (preserve) and light (give direction) and only when we do this are we doing all that we can do.
Ron, please do not get discouraged and quit!
On evolution I would like to say that the website called Panda’s Thumb caused me to stop having any respect for evolutionist integrity. The writings there gave me a lot of insight into the real motives and beliefs of todays evolutionist. Those who claim to be scientist, on that website at least, go ballistic if someone dares to question their ‘doctrine’. As a teacher, I believe a true scientist has an open mind rather than a closed mind, but while these folks admit they cannot even begin to explain the origins of the universe, they also want to shout emphatically that there is no such thing as intelligent design at work in the universe.
I noticed that the scientific method of discovery has been reversed by evolutionist. The conclusion or “outcome” was reached or declared and now the scientist are trying to prove their conclusion with experiments. The fact that the subject (for them) is closed tells me that they do not wish anyone to suggest or point out anything contradictory to their already reached conclusion. Is this how science is supposed to work?
After a few attempts at dialogue with the authors, I began to research and found that much of the new language being used by today’s evolutionist is simply new terms for old facts. I really could not find that irrefutable proof they kept alluding to.
Anyway, Ron, thanks for your website and I wish you success.