Intelligent Design Discussion

[Starman]

I don’t think you’ve answered my questions.  
The Genesis account shows God creating the heavens and the earth over a six day period, with the creation of man on day six.  In what sense is this true?

This is a question, not a trap. 
 

Regarding, Genesis as parable I shouldn’t have used the word “fictitious” since that was not the point.  Using,  whatever definition you like, how is the account a parable? What principles or truths is the parable teaching?

Its OK to say, “I don’t know.” I’m just trying to learn from you.  

[Starman]

Some follow up questions. 

1. Given your neo-Darwinian explanation for biological life on earth in what sense is God the creator?  

2. Are you a proponent of theistic evolution, one version being that God front-loaded the evolutionary process to provide the information and capability to ultimately reach a predetermined result, I.e. humans in His image?

3. If yes, is it not true that the “natural processes” are in fact supernatural processes since they lead to a divine result, which is a very different result than might occur through strictly blind natural processes? 

4. Or do you believe that evolutionary processes are completely blind and the various forms of life on earth, including man, are only the result of biological necessity?  If so, what does God mean when He says, “Let us create man in our image”?

I’m also still hoping that you will answer my previous questions.  

[one.opinion]

@Starman, I'm not sure if you saw my post yesterday. If not, it is down at the bottom of page 5.

[Starman]

One.Opinion

I'm not sure if you saw my post yesterday. If not, it is down at the bottom of page 5

I had seen it. I think right now I've veered off into the theological realm, posing some questions to The Barbarian. Since most of us here are not theologians my expectations are low. 

I'm looking to cohesively integrate the science into a defensible theology. The discussion so far has been interesting but no cohesion yet.  I appreciate your honesty to simply say, "I don't know," which is clearly the only correct answer. 

At the same time I see fatal flaws in evolutionary theory, including: the significant discontinuities in the fossil record which directly contradict Darwinian expectations (few candidate transitions forms with the expectation of many, many closely graded forms); the relative impotence of natural probabilistic forces to drive large scale phenotypic changes (or even modest ones); the inability to present the step-wise molecular changes needed to explain intermediate forms (should be able to model this and create convincing computer simulations); the low probability of beneficial mutations as demonstrated in bacterial studies (and observed adaptation is often the result of loss of function rather than addition of new functionality).

Any of these issues seem sufficient to falsify the theory (prior answers to my questions were incomplete and unconvincing).  This may be fodder for additional discussion.

 

Edited March 2, 2020 by Starman

[one.opinion]

16 hours ago, Starman said:

I had seen it. I think right now I've veered off into the theological realm

That's fine if you want to keep the conversation theological for now. I just had no indication that you'd read what I'd written and it appeared you might have missed it.

16 hours ago, Starman said:

At the same time I see fatal flaws in evolutionary theory, including: the significant discontinuities in the fossil record which directly contradict Darwinian expectations (few candidate transitions forms with the expectation of many, many closely graded forms)

If you want to put this off until later, that's no problem, but we should probably look at the evidence issue by issue, to not dilute the depth of discussion too much. When you are ready, could you explain the evidence that supports your perception of the problem with the fossil record and what alternative the existing fossil record supports better?

[Starman]

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

18 hours ago, Starman said:

 

If you want to put this off until later, that's no problem, but we should probably look at the evidence issue by issue, to not dilute the depth of discussion too much. When you are ready, could you explain the evidence that supports your perception of the problem with the fossil record and what alternative the existing fossil record supports better?

There are endless quotes from well known evolutionists regarding problems with the fossil record.  I’ve provided a small sampling below.  As you know Gould and Eldredge saw these gaps, not mainly as a result of an incomplete fossil record but as a more or less complete record of evolution, resulting in their theory of punctuated equilibrium (which I don’t pretend to fully understand).  I think if one believes that punctuated equilibrium adequately answers the dilemma then it is necessary to explain the mechanism for rapid changes at the molecular level.  Simply declaring that they occur is insufficient.

Also, the Cambrian explosion as recorded in the Burgess Shale and in China should also be included in the discussion since the data seems to go against  neo-Darwinian processes.  As you know the Cambrian explosion is a big topic in and of itself, requiring much detail to be intelligible  (I’ll try to address this in a future post).  In the mean time here are a few quotes.

Chicago Field Museum, Prof. of Geology, Univ. of Chicago, “A large number of well-trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. This probably comes from the oversimplification inevitable in secondary sources: low-level textbooks, semi-popular articles, and so on. Also, there is probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks…One of the ironies of the creation evolution debate is that the creationists have accepted the mistaken notion that the fossil record shows a detailed and orderly progression and they have gone to great lengths to accommodate this ‘fact’ in their Flood (Raup, David, “ Geology” New Scientist, Vol. 90, p.832, 1981.)

A persistent problem in evolutionary biology has been the absence of intermediate forms in the fossil record. Long term gradual transformations of single lineages are rare and generally involve simple size increase or trivial phenotypic effects. Typically, the record consists of successive ancestor-descendant lineages, morphologically invariant through time and unconnected by intermediates.” (Williamson, P.G., Palaeontological Documentation of Speciation in Cenozoic Molluscs from Turkana Basin, 1982, p. 163.)

What one actually found was nothing but discontinuities: All species are separated from each other by bridgeless gaps; intermediates between species are not observed . . . The problem was even more serious at the level of the higher categories.” (Mayr, E., Animal Species and Evolution, 1982, p. 524.)
The known fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with gradualism. What is remarkable is that, through a variety of historical circumstances, even the history of opposition has been obscured . . . ‘The majority of paleontologists felt their evidence simply contradicted Darwin’s stress on minute, slow, and cumulative changes leading to species transformation.’ . . . their story has been suppressed.” (Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable, 1981, p. 71.)

The record jumps, and all the evidence shows that the record is real: the gaps we see reflect real events in life’s history – not the artifact of a poor fossil record.” (Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 59.)

“The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.” (Gould, Stephen J., “ Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?,” 1982, p. 140.)
 

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, Starman said:

I think if one believes that punctuated equilibrium adequately answers the dilemma then it is necessary to explain the mechanism for rapid changes at the molecular level.  Simply declaring that they occur is insufficient.

What specific example of punctuated equilibrium are you thinking of? What is the estimated time frame? You are probably aware that many of these examples still cover millions of years. I don't know of any reason why existing molecular events are insufficient to meet the observed change over the proposed time interval.

1 hour ago, Starman said:

As you know the Cambrian explosion is a big topic in and of itself, requiring much detail to be intelligible  (I’ll try to address this in a future post).  In the mean time here are a few quotes.

What evidence do you have that indicates that the Cambrian explosion, which took roughly 20-25 million years, could not be explained by naturalistic processes?

You've probably seen Kurt Wise (YEC scientist) quotes about how paleontology is good evidence for evolution. Quotes can help reinforce what we already believe, but evidence is needed to draw meaningful scientific conclusions.

I would completely agree that the fossil record doesn't show us what Darwin hoped it would. I would also agree that the fossil record does not completely shield the concept of universal common descent from criticism, but the fossil record is indeed strong evidence for this idea.

[Starman]

From what I’ve been reading you are greatly underestimating the problem with both the fossil record and the Cambrian explosion.  Of course, I need to support this claim but need time to extract the best information.  

The highly acclaimed book “Darwin’s Doubt” provides a very thorough presentation of the problems with Cambrian explosion. I’m reading it slowly since my time is limited. 

I don’t know much about Curt Wise but notice that The Barbarian likes to quote him, since his status as a creationist seems to give more credence to Darwin. 

[The Barbarian]

On 3/2/2020 at 10:35 AM, Starman said:

I don’t think you’ve answered my questions.  
The Genesis account shows God creating the heavens and the earth over a six day period, with the creation of man on day six.  In what sense is this true?

As ancient Christians like St. Augustine showed, the "days" are figurative, and represent categories of God's creation, not time spans.

On 3/2/2020 at 10:35 AM, Starman said:

Regarding, Genesis as parable I shouldn’t have used the word “fictitious” since that was not the point.  Using,  whatever definition you like, how is the account a parable? What principles or truths is the parable teaching?

For us, it's the acknowledgement that God created all things, and made nature to do His will.

21 hours ago, Starman said:

. Given your neo-Darwinian explanation for biological life on earth in what sense is God the creator?  

There is no neo-Darwinian explanation for biological life on Earth.   The origin of life is not part of evolutionary theory.   Even Darwin just supposed that God created the first living things.

21 hours ago, Starman said:

Are you a proponent of theistic evolution, one version being that God front-loaded the evolutionary process to provide the information and capability to ultimately reach a predetermined result, I.e. humans in His image?

If yes, is it not true that the “natural processes” are in fact supernatural processes since they lead to a divine result, which is a very different result than might occur through strictly blind natural processes? 

I agree with St. Thomas Aquinas on this:

"The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow; but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the plan of divine providence conceives to happen from contingency."

Summa Theologiae,

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1022.htm

21 hours ago, Starman said:

Or do you believe that evolutionary processes are completely blind and the various forms of life on earth, including man, are only the result of biological necessity?  If so, what does God mean when He says, “Let us create man in our image”?

See above.   Whether God chose contingency or necessity to effect His will is really not important.   I assume He created things so as to effect His will, as it says in Genesis.  "Theistic evolution" is a religious belief, not part of science.   Truth is, evolution can only be theistic, since it's part of nature, and therefore a creation of God.    However, the methodology of science can't investigate the supernatural, so it can only observe nature.    So "theistic evolution" would describe the view of any Christian familiar with, and receptive to the evidence .

Anything else?

 

 

 

[The Barbarian]

2 hours ago, Starman said:

There are endless quotes from well known evolutionists regarding problems with the fossil record.  I’ve provided a small sampling below.  As you know Gould and Eldredge saw these gaps, not mainly as a result of an incomplete fossil record but as a more or less complete record of evolution, resulting in their theory of punctuated equilibrium (which I don’t pretend to fully understand).  I think if one believes that punctuated equilibrium adequately answers the dilemma then it is necessary to explain the mechanism for rapid changes at the molecular level.  Simply declaring that they occur is insufficient.

From Stephen Gould:

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.

• "Evolution as Fact and Theory", p. 260