Let's Discuss Scientific Objections to Evolution

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, David1701 said:

Yes, I understood that perfectly; and it's a very useful concept.  I simply would not describe it merely as information.  I would describe it as additional information.

That is not part of information theory, nor is it needed to evaluate or use information.  

1 hour ago, David1701 said:

The definition you have given, for information, is highly specialised and not one for common usage

It is the definition used in communications and genetics, among others.   Common usage of words often don't apply to real life applications.    I wonder if you've started to think that maybe "information" is not really the issue in evolution.    As we discussed, macroevolution often involves an initial decrease in information, followed by a larger increase.   The Hawaiian flies are a good example.

 

[teddyv]

On 8/23/2020 at 9:41 PM, Tristen said:

This is an untruth promoted by Ronald Numbers in his 1992 book, "The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism". There are many examples among, for example, the early reformers (including Luther and Tyndale) who vehemently defended what they called "the plain sense of the scriptures".

 

Sorry to jump in here, but I just got back from a field job.

I'm not sure Luther should be our go-to person on this. Running from memory here, he was apparently vehemently against Copernicus' findings of a heliocentric model of the solar system - because it was against the plain reading of the text.

[Marathoner]

Many thanks for some fascinating reading, @The Barbarian. I'm glad I returned to the topic to catch up.  

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, Marathoner said:

Many thanks for some fascinating reading, @The Barbarian. I'm glad I returned to the topic to catch up.

My pleasure.

 

[The Barbarian]

2 hours ago, teddyv said:

Sorry to jump in here, but I just got back from a field job.

I'm not sure Luther should be our go-to person on this. Running from memory here, he was apparently vehemently against Copernicus' findings of a heliocentric model of the solar system - because it was against the plain reading of the text.

Yes. 

The specific response one of the most important contemporaries of Copernicus, Martin Luther, is telling. The quote below is actually in response to the publication of the brief Commentariolus, which appeared a decade before De Revolutionibus. It comes from Luther's Tablebook (Tischreden), or record of dinner-table conversations:

"There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must needs invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth."

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast161/Unit3/response.html

We need to be careful to separate our own reading from what Scripture actually says.    Luther clearly confused a figurative description for a literal one.   He wouldn't be the first, or the last.

 

 

 

[Tristen]

On 8/25/2020 at 1:02 AM, The Barbarian said:

On 8/24/2020 at 2:41 PM, Tristen said:

Well - I'd be happy to look at any "literature" you think supports your, as yet, Unsupported Assertion that they are "wrong".

DROSOPHILA MIRANDA, A NEW SPECIES

Th. Dobzhansky

Genetics  Volume 20: 377 – Jul 1, 1935

Hi Barbarian,

I think you have misunderstood this paper. It does not report an observation of speciation (the process by which one species develops into another). It simply reports the discovery of a new putative species (i.e. the author is arguing that this population is distinct enough from others to warrant a designation of separate species). Note that, “the original miranda females” were “caught in nature” (p379). The author also uses correctly hedged language in describing the common ancestor of the two described species as “hypothetical” (p389) – and therefore this division was not observed.

Interestingly, the author does a good job of discussing the difficulty and subjective nature of assigning similar creatures to separate species.

 

On 8/25/2020 at 1:02 AM, The Barbarian said:

On 8/24/2020 at 2:41 PM, Tristen said:

One of the things I've found interesting about our conversation is that your sourced quotes include an interpretation of Augustine, along with a quote from Augustine. And while the associated interpretation disagrees with what I stated, the Augustine quotes don't actually disagree with what I stated. That means at best, the quote is ambiguous.

They just don't support your claims.   But as you see, Augustine unambigously states that the "days" of Genesis are not at all like our 24 hours days.   Moreover, he puts a symbolic interpretation on them, not consistent with a period of time.

My claim was that some, including Augustine, adopted a dual approach to interpreting Genesis (both historical and symbolic). Augustine specified that the primary approach should be non-allegorical. So even what you said here does not contradict my claim.

 

On 8/25/2020 at 1:02 AM, The Barbarian said:

On 8/24/2020 at 2:41 PM, Tristen said:

Furthermore, your statement here exemplifies one of the main problems with the debate. People on the secular side are so indoctrinated regarding their correctness and the supposed strength of their position, that they are comfortable resorting to fallacy rather than engage in rational argument.

Your statement here exemplifies one of the main problems with the debate. People on the YE creationist side are so indoctrinated regarding their correctness and the supposed strength of their position, that they are comfortable resorting to fallacy rather than engage in rational argument.   Because if you really had the knock-out punch that you think you have, you'd present that argument instead of using rhetorical devices; trying to ridicule opponents out of the conversation.

So you respond to an accusation of fallacy, with another fallacy (in this instance Tū quoque). My argument was rational. I accused you of fallacy when you argued fallaciously (i.e. Innuendo coupled with Unsupported Assertion). Then you compounded your initial use of fallacy with another use of fallacy. Any use of fallacy is technically irrational.

I don't need a "knock-out punch" against the secular story because I don't claim my position is objectively superior. I actually think the secular story is, for the most part, rational; given the faith assumption that no god (or supernatural entity) has interfered with the process of the natural universe. But if we start from a different faith premise (e.g. historical Genesis), then we can interpret the very same facts to fit the Biblical model of reality. There is no legitimate intellectual obligation to the secular story, and therefore, no objective logical, or scientific, reason to distrust the Biblical account of creation as written.

 

You said, “It's all very well-documented”

What is “well documented”? All I have to do to falsify your claim that young earth creationism is new is provide one example of a young earth creationist before George Price (e.g. Augustine thought the world was created in 5600BC – job done). So I ask again – how many examples would you like? I also noted they referenced Ronald Number's book - Lol. Maybe you are trying to equivocate your argument to the existence of the phrase “creation science” - in which case your argument is meaningless. I'm talking about the belief in the historical interpretation of Genesis 1, not the current English label for that belief.

 

“Notice that Graham was willing to accept scientific evidence for the age of the Earth”

I also have no problem with any of the facts. “Scientific evidence” is a logically specious phrase designed to insinuate that your interpretation of the facts (i.e. the use of facts as evidence for your position) is somehow more valid than an opposing interpretation of the same facts (i.e. as used to support their position) - i.e. because yours is supposedly "scientific" - even though we both use the same methodology.

In science, we have facts, and we have evidence (i.e. facts interpreted to support a particular conclusion – i.e. as “evidence” of said position). If your argument was as strong as you suppose, you wouldn't have to resort to rhetorical exaggeration.

 

P.S. I've noticed some posts in this thread being hidden. I want y'all to know this is not my doing.

 

[Tristen]

6 hours ago, teddyv said:

Sorry to jump in here, but I just got back from a field job.

I'm not sure Luther should be our go-to person on this. Running from memory here, he was apparently vehemently against Copernicus' findings of a heliocentric model of the solar system - because it was against the plain reading of the text.

Hi Teddy,

The argument that I am contesting is @The Barbarian's claim that young earth creationism is a new/"revised" interpretation of Genesis. If it can be shown that Luther believed in a young creation because of what he read in scripture, then Barbarian's claim is falsified.

[The Barbarian]

27 minutes ago, Tristen said:

I think you have misunderstood this paper. It does not report an observation of speciation (the process by which one species develops into another). It simply reports the discovery of a new putative species (i.e. the author is arguing that this population is distinct enough from others to warrant a designation of separate species). Note that, “the original miranda females” were “caught in nature” (p379). The author also uses correctly hedged language in describing the common ancestor of the two described species as “hypothetical” (p389) – and therefore this division was not observed.

Interestingly, the author does a good job of discussing the difficulty and subjective nature of assigning similar creatures to separate species.

No, that's wrong. It's describing how one population of D. miranda had evolved sufficiently to be considered a new species.   That's what he reported.  

As you know, if creationism were true,we'd see precise boundaries between taxa.  But that's not what we see.  There are transitional forms everywhere.   YE Creationist Kurt Wise lists some of them and admits that they are "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."  

Even more compelling, we see no transitionals were there shouldn't be any.   But the observed speciations,such as the one above, are not at issue.

 

[The Barbarian]

24 minutes ago, Tristen said:

The argument that I am contesting is @The Barbarian's claim that young earth creationism is a new/"revised" interpretation of Genesis. If it can be shown that Luther believed in a young creation because of what he read in scripture, then Barbarian's claim is falsified.

No.  YE creationism is more than just a belief in a young Earth.   The entire new doctrine of the Adventists was taken up by evangelicals.

Luther believed that the sun orbited the Earth because of what he read in scripture.  Eventually, people like Luther came to realize that they were forcing a literal reinterpretation on scripture.   Today, we see that same process going on with creationists, who are slowly accepting Darwin's theory and even common descent.    Most only accept it to a limited degree, but once that starts,there's no boundary to accepting God's creation entirely.

 

 

[Tristen]

Hi @The Barbarian,

Firstly, I know I said this before, but I want to make sure you know that I am not the one hiding your responses. I actually find it irritating, because when your responses are hidden, I don't get notified. Also, I can't quote a hidden post – so I'll have to notify you using the @The Barbarian feature. But back to the discussion;

 

You said, “No, that's wrong. It's describing how one population of D. miranda had evolved sufficiently to be considered a new species. That's what he reported”

I am absolutely not “wrong”. The paper may be speculating as to how the speciation occurred, but it is not reporting that any speciation was observed – which was your original claim. Are you again Moving the Goalposts? Your original argument was that Biblical creationists taught 'fixity of species' - which was incorrect.

Typically speaking, we've never had a problem with the process of speciation. But according to your quotes against a few creationists, they claimed speciation has not been observed. Whether or not they are correct is irrelevant to your original point, and ultimately irrelevant to creationism (since we don't have any issue with speciation). Nevertheless, I don't remember reading a paper on observed speciation – so I would be legitimately interested if you are aware of one. If you are unable to provide such an example, it only means you are mistaken in your accusations against those creationists. That is, you assumed something to be true that is not actually supported in the literature.

 

“As you know, if creationism were true,we'd see precise boundaries between taxa. But that's not what we see. There are transitional forms everywhere”

On what basis do you expect to find “precise boundaries between taxa” (which itself is a very vague claim)? I'm wondering if you haven't properly understood the creationist position. The only distinctions we'd necessarily see are between the original created kinds. Such distinctions are definitely evident in the genomic data – though those facts can be alternatively interpreted by secularists as representing more distant relations.

 

“YE Creationist Kurt Wise lists some of them and admits that they are "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory”

I don't know who Kurt Wise is. But I'd be happy to take a look at any examples you'd care to provide and argue for.

By the way, who decides when an “evidence” attains the standard of “very good”? Where can I find that standard reported in the literature? Or is this yet more rhetorical fluff?

 

“Even more compelling, we see no transitionals were there shouldn't be any”

I don't know what you mean here (perhaps examples would be helpful).

But while we are on the topic, the very concept of “transitional forms” has been equivocated from Darwin's original meaning. When Darwin lamented the lack of “transitional forms”, he was speaking to structural transitions (e.g. the putative forms between scales and feathers). He was not speaking to any fossil that can be squeezed between other fossils on the putative tree of life. If he meant that, his claim would make no sense (since the tree of life was also his invention).

 

“But the observed speciations,such as the one above, are not at issue”

I'm not sure you understand what “observed” means.

The idea that two species of Drosophila flies are related is also “not at issue” for creationists.

 

“YE creationism is more than just a belief in a young Earth. The entire new doctrine of the Adventists was taken up by evangelicals”

Well what is this “new doctrine”? When I say YEC, I simply mean I accept the Genesis account of history as it is written (i.e. historical rather than allegorical). Subsequent to that, and having investigated the issue attaining professional scientific qualifications, I have found no objective reason to think I am obligated to the secular, long-ages, story. So I can continue to trust the Genesis account of history without intellectual compromise (despite the populist propaganda whereby people try to bully me out of the conversation by fallacy and rhetoric).

So am I a YEC according to this “new doctrine”? I generally prefer the phrase “Biblical creationist” - because, 'How old is old, and how young is young?'. But I assume when others use the term YEC, they are referring to what I believe.

 

“Luther believed that the sun orbited the Earth because of what he read in scripture. Eventually, people like Luther came to realize that they were forcing a literal reinterpretation on scripture”

But does the scripture really state as a fact that “the sun orbited the Earth”? Because Genesis goes into explicit, repeated, extensive detail about the creation occurring in 6 days. So was Luther really “forcing a literal reinterpretation on scripture”, or was his error in presuming to go beyond what the scripture actually stated (i.e. eisegesis – reading ideas into scripture that aren't derived directly from the text itself)?

In terms of analogy, I would also suggest that this is a category error. The relative orbits of cosmic bodies is something that can be both directly, and repeatedly, observed. We will never be able to observe the distant past without a time machine.

But who cares what Luther thought about the planetary orbits? My point about Luther is that, he, like me, believed in the historical interpretation of Genesis. Therefore, he was a YEC that existed before Price.

 

“Today, we see that same process going on with creationists, who are slowly accepting Darwin's theory and even common descent”

I was raised secular, with an exclusively secular education. I converted to Christianity as a young adult and was a Christian for around two years before I knew such thing as creationists really existed. Since I did not find any of the attempts to conform scripture to long-ages satisfactory, I investigated the issue for myself (including formal scientific education) – finding that there is no objective reason for me to distrust what the Bible teaches plainly about history (i.e. no objective reason in science; or logic more generally). My position has nothing to do with the movements of other “creationists”, but is based on my own qualified investigations and understanding.

 

“Most only accept it to a limited degree, but once that starts,there's no boundary to accepting God's creation entirely”

I already accept “God's creation entirely”.