Philosophical Naturalism

My Discussion with Professor Tom Melendy (Part 2)

Published by Papa Giorgio

…This is continued from Part I

Nick DeM. again adds

i can’t get enough of this conversation!!! pbs needs to give you gentlemen a morning talk show.

ME

May I say I disagree that the data supports evolution, neo-Darwinian at least. The data is INTERPRETED a certain way, for instance, from my first chapter of my book (it is a refutation of sorts to a fellow classmate that produced the DVD, “The God Who Wasn’t There”).

And the main idea here is that one position is metaphysical, the other is more neutral… which will lead into my next comment, and a change of direction to the conversation if you do not mind Doc Melendy

….Let us see if we can ferret out Mr. Flemming’s starting premise with an interview with Dr. Dean Kenyon,[1] Assistant Professor of Biology at San Francisco State University (Emeritus), when he was asked this question: “What are the general presuppositions that scientists make who study the origin of life?” Dr. Kenyon responded:

“Well, I think there are two general kinds of presuppositions that people can make, one is that life, in fact, did arise naturalistically on the primitive earth by some kind of chemical evolutionary process. The second presupposition would be that life may or may not have arisen by a naturalistic, chemical process. Now, if you have the first presupposition, then the goal of your research is to work out plausible pathways of chemical development to go to the bio-polymers, then to the protocells; and what would be likely pathways that you could demonstrate in the laboratory by simulation experiment. If you have the second presupposition, your still going to be doing experiments, but you’re going to be more open to the possibility that the data, as they [or, it] come[s] in from those studies may actually be suggesting a different explanation of origins altogether.”[2]

The logical position, what I would say is the truly scientific way to look at these issues, is to say what Kenyon just did: “life may or may not have arisen by a naturalistic, chemical process.” He, in other words, did not beg the question. This embedded philosophy[3] is what the fervor was over in Kansas a few years back. The Kansas Board of Education caused a firestorm by hearing the drafting board’s proposal to change one word in the working definition of science. The original drafting commission defined science as:

  • “Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us.”

The Kansas board of education drafting committee defined science as,

  • “Science is the human activity of seeking logical explanations for what we observe in the world around us.”[4]

This simple word change, and the subsequent fervor it caused, illustrates the embedded philosophy in current science.[5] So the first thing that Principle Sipus should have asked of Brian is for him to define what science is and the type of evidence his definition of science produces. After getting his definition he should have asked this:

Since the evidence you are asking for is excluded by your definition of empirical science, aren’t you “begging the question” Brian? Likewise I could ask of you to disprove by the scientific method God’s existence, and, by your definition of science — which excludes anything metaphysical — I would be setting you up for failure, because science (at least as you [Brian] define it) is incapable of proving or disproving God.”

[1] Kenyon received a B.Sc. in physics from the University of Chicago in 1961 and a Ph.D. in biophysics from Stanford University in 1965. In 1965-1966 he was a National Science Foundation Postdoctoral Fellow in Chemical Biodynamics at the University of California, Berkeley, a Research Associate at Ames Research Center. In 1966, he became Assistant Professor of Biology at San Francisco State University. He has been Emeritus at San Francisco State University since 2000.

[2] Focus on Darwinism: An Interview with Dean H. Kenyon (Focus on Origin Series, Access Research Network, DVD, 2004).

[3] I will give yet another example that makes my point for me: “Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.” Kansan State University immunologist, Scott Todd, correspondence to Nature, 410 [6752], 30 September, 1999.

[4] Phillip E. Johnson, The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 68 (emphasis added).

[5] i.e., scientism, materialism, empiricism, existentialism, naturalism, and humanism – whatever you want to call it… it is still a metaphysical position as it assumes or presumes certain things about the entire universe. D’Souza points this a priori commitment out:

Naturalism and materialism are not scientific conclusions; rather, they are scientific premises. They are not discovered in nature but imposed upon nature. In short, they are articles of faith. Here is Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a priori commitment, a commitment — a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

Dinesh D’Souza points to this in his recent book, What’s So Great about Christianity (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 2007), 161 (emphasis added).

(http://www.scribd.com/collections/2649254/Worldviews-A-Click-Away-from-Binary-Collisions-Religio-Political-Apologetics)

(To buttress the above):

If science really is permanently committed to methodological naturalism – the philosophical position that restricts all explanations in science to naturalistic explanations – it follows that the aim of science is not generating true theories. Instead, the aim of science would be something like: generating the best theories that can be formulated subject to the restriction that the theories are naturalistic. More and more evidence could come in suggesting that a supernatural being exists, but scientific theories wouldn’t be allowed to acknowledge that possibility.

(Atheist) Bradley Monton, author of “Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design”

Tom, let’s leave your specialty for a bit, if you don’t mind, and enter into the above topic. “What is evidence.” Historically, in the Christian faith, there have been two books, one is “Book of Revelation,” and the other is the “Book of Nature.” The early Church Fathers (really apologists) said you can/could glean information from both — one of course being more complete, at least, for the Christian.

I am sure you would agree with most of what is below[?], it comes from a discussion I had a decade ago:

…The question then is: What evidence do you need? Or better yet: What kind of evidence? Can Science help? Lets see… the scientific method merely shows that if miracles did occur in the past, that science (as currently defined) could not prove, or disprove, their occurrence. You cannot find out what Napoleon did at the Battle of Austerlitz by asking him to come and fight it again in a laboratory with the same combatants, the same terrain, the same weather, and in the same age. You have to go to the records. We have not, in fact, proved that science excludes miracles: we have only proved that the question of miracles, like the innumerable other questions [of history], excludes laboratory treatment. And Christianity claims to be a historical belief. The resurrection of Jesus was an historical event, one that cannot be repeated in the laboratory. So how, then, do we deal with the historic claims of Christianity? Like any other historical event, we go to the records.

  • “What are the distinctive sources for our beliefs about the past? Most of the beliefs we have about the past come to us by the testimony of other people. I wasn’t present at the signing of the Declaration of Independence. I didn’t see my father fight in the [S]econd [W]orld [W]ar. I have been told about these events by sources that I take to be reliable. The testimony of others is generally the main source of our beliefs about the past…. So all our beliefs about the past depend on testimony, or memory, or both.” (Philosophy for Dummies, by Tom Morris, pp. 57-58)
  • “In advanced societies specialization in the gathering and production of knowledge and its wider dissemination through spoken and written testimony is a fundamental socio-epistemic fact, and a very large part of each persons body of knowledge and belief stems from testimony.” (The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, edited by Robert Audi[2nd ed.], p. 909)
  • “But it is clear that most of what any given individual knows comes from others; palpably with knowledge of history, geography, or science, more subtly with knowledge about every day facts such as when we were born..” (The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, edited by Ted Honderich, p. 869)

So when Shadow Warchief says, “I haven’t seen a single shred of evidence for the existence of God,” is he defining what evidence is and how we get knowledge about past events, and then going to the sources to see if they are credible or not? (http://www.scribd.com/doc/48848626/Apologetics-Evidence-Paper)

From this past conversation the point is made that evidence isn’t always empirical. Remember my mock discussion between the professor and his student? — not “mine,” but from the book I recommended to you).

So, how do you prove God? You can have fingerprints of His work (intelligent design, which predates Christ, and thus, is not “creationism” in disguise), you can combine the “Book of Revelation” with that of “Nature” (creationism), BUT… how do you prove God’s existence?

Only if God dealt with — miraculously — our world. Which the Christian faith says He did. Of course coming in human form as well. Yes, the Creator of the space-time-continuum, the BANG behind the “Big-Bang” came to our world. Whether you are an old earth creationist (OEC), a theistic-Christian, or a young earther (YEC)… the answer to the question of “who Jesus is/was” should be answered by our faith. And thus answer the idea that God’s existence can be proven.

Yeah?

Tom Melendy

Okay Sean, the quality of your posts is decreasing. You’re now citing an Assistant Professor (Emeritus just means retired) of physics/biophysics at San Francisco State University (note this is NOT the same as the University of California San Francisco – SFS is just one step above a community college for Pete’s sake) as a source on a question about biology. That’s an epic Fail. His NSF fellowship – no biggie – particularly when he got it, back in the 60s when grant funding rates were over 50%, and fellowship rates were even higher, it was a breeze to get those things (and yes, I got a more prestigious fellowship during much more competitive times – I was also a US Presidential Fellow if you know what that means).

I’m not here to argue the Big Bang, that’s not my area. Nor am I here to argue the origins of life on Earth. While I have read a few of the papers on that area, it is not my specialty, and I am ill equipped to ague for or against it – so I won’t. I take no position on these topics. What I am fairly well equipped to defend, is that from the early forms of life on this planet, there is a clear fossil, and in many cases genetic (I say “many” because we can’t extract useable genetic material from the earliest fossils) record that is phenomenally consistent with evolution (many would say “creating” but I’ll say) being the method by which current forms of life on this planet were created (again, if anyone wants to propose evolution as the way in which God created the animals and mankind, I have zero problem with that). I agree, Sean, science cannot disprove miracles – nor can science disprove things supernatural. I agree that some things cannot be tested in the laboratory because we cannot ‘be’ there and cannot reproduce it in the laboratory (your example about Napoleon at the Battle of Austerlitz), for these we have to rely on other evidence – but it is NOT JUST testimony Sean – we an go to old battlefields today and we can find evidence of the battles and how they occurred. People can even collect samples of DNA from items from battles fought hundreds of years ago and find out who was fighting – testimony is important, but so is other methods of evaluation. – back to the point I was making – I agree science cannot disprove miracles. Yet when you have something where there is clear evidence that it can be the result of a natural process – why invoke a supernatural process? The rule of Occams razor comes into effect here (yes, I can invoke a little philosophy too Sean) – the principle of parsimony states that when using logic or question/problem-solving, the simplest argument or the argument invoking the fewest gaps or unsupported steps is favored. Specifically – there is a great deal of evidence that supports evolution being the process by which complex forms of life, and mankind, arose from earlier forms of life. Even given miracles are possible, the rule of Occams razor states that the conclusion that current forms of life arose through evolution is far more favored over a second theory, that all current forms of life arose through a miracle(s). In other words, if a natural process can be used to explain this, one should not assume the miraculous theory. If I carry out an experiment and natural sciences cannot explain my result – I say so; I say the results cannot be explained. That is not the case for evolution, don’t invoke miracles when you don’t need to.

I wish to add here that Tom’s adding DNA to the example of Napoleons Battle of Austerlitz misses the point. The scientist grabbing some bones from the battlefield is still 100% relying on historical records/testimony that this is where the bone is coming from. A picture of Abraham Lincoln is considered authentic because of the historical testimony surround the picture in question and the many other testimonies surrounding other pictures. We come to knowledge that this isn’t a “carny” look alike for photo ops.

ME

Sean Giordano It is telling to me that you dismiss a point (the point is separate from the person) in an ad-hominem manner. Dr. Kenyon, when an evolutionist, had one of the most popular book in the cutting edge of where evolutionary theory was heading at that point (science corrects itself).

There are Nobel prize winning scientists that are I.D.’ers, and I noted before that the guy most credited in getting us to the moon, the co-founder of the MRI, and the most lauded pediatric surgeon are YEC. Not to mention Dr. Edgar Andrews would surely at least like to survey your positions above… as well as Dr. Jonathan Sarfati. Even if they do not get involved in the convo, there are very intelligent men who take positions that are rejected apriori to the dealing with the positions taken based on the evidence. in other words, you define, apriori, what evidence is… sometimes based on whether a person is an evolutionist or not. In fact, you are talking to a three time felon, high school drop out. I just happened to have read over 2,000 books cover-to-cover (I have over 5,000 in my home library) and finally went to seminary to get a non-scientific degree.

Ironic… the quote must have hit close to home for you to mention his position (I am only assuming based on your reaction… if we were playing poler, its called “a tell”).

The idea I clearly espoused via the quote from my book is the same the atheist Dr. Monton pointed out in regards to Newton’s position (arguably the greatest scientist):

FOLLOWING SUPERNATURALISM MAKES THE SCIENTIST’S TASK TOO EASY

Here’s the first of Pennock’s arguments against methodological naturalism that I’ll consider:

allowing appeal to supernatural powers in science would make the scientist’s task too easy, because one would always be able to call upon the gods for quick theoretical assistance…. Indeed, all empirical investigation beyond the purely descriptive could cease, for scientists would have a ready-made answer for everything.

This argument strikes me as unfair. Consider a particular empirical phenomenon, like a chemical reaction, and imagine that scientists are trying to figure out why the reaction happened. Pennock would say that scientists who allow appeal to supernatural powers would have a ready-made answer: God did it. While it may be that that’s the only true explanation that can be given, a good scientist-including a good theistic scientist—would wonder whether there’s more to be said. Even if God were ultimately the cause of the reaction, one would still wonder if the proximate cause is a result of the chemicals that went into the reaction, and a good scientist—even a good theistic scientist—would investigate whether such a naturalistic account could be given.

To drive the point home, an analogy might be helpful. With the advent of quantum mechanics, scientists have become comfortable with indeterministic events. For example, when asked why a particular radioactive atom decayed at the exact time that it did, most physicists would say that there’s no reason it decayed at that particular time; it was just an indeterministic event!’ One could imagine an opponent of indeterminism giving an argument that’s analogous to Pennock’s:

allowing appeal to indeterministic processes in science would make the scientist’s task too easy, because one would always be able to call upon chance for quick theoretical assistance…. Indeed, all empirical investigation beyond the purely descriptive could cease, for scientists would have a ready-made answer for everything.

It is certainly possible that, for every event that happens, scientists could simply say “that’s the result of an indeterministic chancy process; there’s no further explanation for why the event happened that way.” But this would clearly be doing bad science: just because the option of appealing to indeterminism is there, it doesn’t follow that the option should always be used. The same holds for the option of appealing to supernatural powers.

As further evidence against Pennock, it’s worth pointing out that prominent scientists in the past have appealed to supernatural powers, without using them as a ready-made answer for everything. Newton is a good example of this—he is a devout theist, in addition to being a great scientist, and he thinks that God sometimes intervenes in the world. Pennock falsely implies that this is not the case:

God may have underwritten the active principles that govern the world described in [Newton’s] Principia and the Opticks, but He did not interrupt any of the equations or regularities therein. Johnson and other creationists who want to dismiss methodological naturalism would do well to consult Newton’s own rules of reasoning….

But in fact, Newton does not endorse methodological naturalism. In his Opticks, Newton claims that God sometimes intervenes in the world. Specifically, Newton thinks that, according to his laws of motion, the orbits of planets in our solar system are not stable over long periods of time, and his solution to this problem is to postulate that God occasionally adjusts the motions of the planets so as to ensure the continued stability of their orbits. Here’s a relevant passage from Newton. (It’s not completely obvious that Newton is saying that God will intervene but my interpretation is the standard one.)

God in the Beginning form’d Matter in solid, massy, hard, impenetrable, moveable Particles … it became him who created them to set them in order. And if he did so, it’s unphilosophical to seek for any other Origin of the World, or to pretend that it might arise out of a Chaos by the mere Laws of Nature; though being once form’d, it may continue by those Laws for many Ages. For while Comets move in very excentrick Orbs in all manner of Positions, blind Fate could never make all the Planets move one and the same way in Orbs concentrick, some inconsiderable Irregularities excepted, which may have risen from the mutual Actions of Comets and Planets upon one another, and which will be apt to increase, till this System wants a Reformation…. [God is] able by his Will to move the Bodies within his boundless uniform Sensorium, and thereby to form and reform the Parts of the Universe….

A scientist who writes this way does not sound like a scientist who is following methodological naturalism.

It’s worth noting that some contemporaries of Newton took issue with his view of God occasionally intervening in the universe. For example, Leibniz writes:

Sir Isaac Newton and his followers also have a very odd opinion concerning the work of God. According to them, God Almighty needs to wind up his watch from time to time; otherwise it would cease to move. He had not, it seems, sufficient foresight to make it a perpetual motion.”

Note, though, that Leibniz also thought that God intervened in the world:

I hold that when God works miracles, he does not do it in order to supply the wants of nature, but those of grace.

Later investigation revealed that in fact planetary orbits are more stable than Newton thought, so Newton’s appeal to supernatural powers wasn’t needed. But the key point is that Newton is willing to appeal to supernatural powers, without using the appeal to supernatural powers as a ready-made answer for everything.

Pennock says that “Without the binding assumption of uninterruptible natural law there would be absolute chaos in the scientific worldview.” Newton’s own approach to physics provides a good counterexample to this—Newton is a leading contributor to the scientific worldview, and yet he does not bind himself by the assumption of uninterruptible natural law.

Bradley Monton, Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design (Buffalo, NY: Broadview Press, 2009), 62-64.

[….]

Haha… just thought of this. Next you will tell me his Ph.D. in biophysics from Stanford University is less important than you Ph.D. UCLA. Funny. I love the humorous positions that come from these discussions. the Bible says “a haughty spirit before a fall” (Proverbs 16:18b).

It is ironic that Tom would not accept the simple premise that Dr. Kenyon gave because he is both ONLY an assistant professor AND has a doctorate in a field of science not related wholly to that of Tom’s… yet, here he is talking with a 3-time felon/high school drop out.

Tom Melendy

Who’s being haughty now Sean? You’ve stopped your “dialog” with me and now you’re just proselytizing. You’re complaining that I’m criticizing people’s degrees – it’s not where they are so much as what their background is! I’m sorry, biophysics is NOT biology – it’s physics (yes, applied to biological problems, but it’s PHYSICS!). Like I’ve posted above, reading the books does not make you a specialist, I don’t care if you’re a three-time felon college drop-out, OR a person with a biophysics PhD from Stanford.

[….]

And I will point out that you now refuse to engage my arguments – again, it looks like you’ve chickened out of the dialog and are just throwing quotes at the wall hoping something sticks. ANSWER MY POINTS IF YOU WANT A DIALOG! Could it be perhaps that you don’t know how to respond to a scientist who isn’t invested in discrediting the existence of God or miracles, but instead is just interesting in arguing the merits of evolution? You’ve replied to none of my points over the past day Sean. While I have criticized some of the “specialists” you cite, I have also responded to most of your points.

[….]

It seems almost as if you didn’t really want a dialog Sean, and that it was more like you were looking for a soap-box. Are you still unwilling to admit any credence for a role in evolution in the creation of mankind (whether God-driven or natual-laws driven)?

Here we come to the end of where Dr. Melendy participates. I answer a couple of his specific inquiries, but know that they are asked as if they cannot be answered. Enjoy the responses:

ME

(I will mention a book for each section for those reading this.)

YOU ASKED (I deal with two more in-depth below)

let me ask you a question. If God created all the species* currently on the Earth either 6000 years ago, or through intelligent design, why is there so much evidence that supports Evolution? Why Ancient species, why evidence for intermediate* species? If you believe in an all-powerful God, yet don’t believe in Evolution, then why are these fossils there, then why does the genetic code show evidence of intermediates and sequence-relatedness consistent with Evolution? Do you believe God put it all there just to try to confuse us? Seems like a lot of trouble just to play a little mind-game with mankind – ??

Have you ever sought out a book by a doctorate holding person to answer these? Or do you go around thinking they are unanswerable?

 

Correcting Some Bad Thinking

*MACROEVOLUTION-SPECIES

I still think you were passing false information on in this regard to Jim:

Jim, Macro evolution has been observed in the laboratory under controlled conditions – within just a few generations you can “breed” fish to be miniature fish, which reproduce and “grow” up while never getting bigger than the size they were bred for.

And to me:

Macroevolution does NOT require an “increase in the gene pool” – the gene pool of the horse and donkey are virtually identical, yet they are separate species (yet closely related enough to produce sterile offspring). The reason they are different species is due to the cytogenetic changes (note that does NOT involve additional genetic material or a greater gene pool).

You should know what the other side believes before asking a question, its 101, you asked: “If God created all the SPECIES currently on the Earth either 6000 years ago, or through intelligent design, why is there so much evidence that supports Evolution?” He didn’t, God created the “Kinds,” which is more like Order (Felidae, Canidae, etc). You have a doctorate, right? Do you get it yet? Order… species… different.

In every Oxford dictionary and companion book to biology, physics, and the like, textbooks (I have many university level texts)… macroevolution has the same definition. I think you telling people on this site that special change is evidence of macro-evolution is deplorable. But maybe you thought no one would catch this because you were degreed. You did back away from this though… in many more words though than just saying “I was wrong.” I even had to throw in an elementary picture to make the point (http://tinyurl.com/3npkel8).

It is very important not to confuse the “created kind” with the modern use of the word species. Although animals like the fox and coyote might be considered different taxonomic species, they are still parts of the same “kind” of animal. The created kind is thought to be more often synonymous with the “Family” level of classification in the taxonomic hierarchy; at least in mammals; and occasionally it can extend as high as the order level. Here are some examples:

Felidae — Scientists from Creation Ministries International and the Institute for Creation Research have proposed that the original feline kind was comparable to the Liger and the Tigon.

Canidae — Including Wolves, Foxes, Jackals, Coyotes, and Domestic dogs.

Camelidae — Including both the Camel and the Llama, which are reproductively compatible, their hybrid offspring being known as “Camas.”

Bovidae — Including Cattle, Buffalo, Bison, and Yaks.

Equidae — Including Horses, Zebras, and Asses.

Caprinae — Including Sheep, Goats, and Ibex.

Crocodilia — Including all the varieties of Alligators, Crocodiles, and Gharials.

Elephantidae — Including African and Asian elephants, Mammoths, Mastodons, and Gomphotheres.

Thus the created kind corresponds roughly to the family level of taxonomic classification, and possibly even the order, with the notable exception of humanity wherein the genus is representative.[10]

Humanity — Dr. Sigrid Hartwig-Scherer of the University of Munich concluded that H. erectus/H. ergaster, Neanderthals and H. sapiens were members of the same basic type (which corresponds to a monobaramin) genus Homo.

http://creationwiki.org/Created_kind

BOOK: “Refuting Evolution 2,” by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati. (Free online: http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-index)

*INTERMEDIATES (THIS DOESN’T MEAN THEY DON’T BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION, IT JUST MEANS THEY ARE HONEST):

Anthropologist Edmund R. Leach told the 1981 Annual Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science:

✔ “Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so.”

David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago:

✔ “He [Darwin] was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn’t look the way he predicted it would and, as a result, he devoted a long section of his Origin of Species to an attempt to explain and rationalize the differences…. Darwin’s general solution to the incompatibility of fossil evidence and his theory was to say that the fossil record is a very incomplete one…. Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information [archaeopteryx as well].”

Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, probably evolution’s leading spokesperson today, has acknowledged:

✔ “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.”

George Gaylord Simpson, perhaps the twentieth century’s foremost paleontologist, said:

✔ “This regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists. It is true of almost all orders of all classes of animals, both vertebrate and invertebrate.”

David B. Kitts of the school of Geology and Geophysics at the University of Oklahoma wrote:

✔ “Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of ‘seeing’ evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of ‘gaps’ in the fossil record. Evolution requires [key word, requires] intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them.”

Dr. Steven Stanley of the department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, John Hopkins University, says:

✔ “The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic [structural] transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid.”

Professor Heribert Nilsson, Director of the Botanical Institute at Lund University, Sweden, declared after forty years of study:

✔ “It may, therefore, be firmly maintained that it is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that it has been possible to construct new classes and the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of the material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled.”

Gareth J. Nelson, of the American Museum of Natural History:

✔ “It is a mistake to believe that even one fossil species or fossil ‘group’ can be demonstrated to have been ancestral to another. The ancestor-descendant relationship may only be assumed to have existed in the absence of evidence indicating otherwise.”

Moreover, Newsweek reported:

✔ “In the fossil record, missing links are the rule: the story of life is as disjointed as a silent newsreel, in which species succeed one another as abruptly as Balkan prime ministers. The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms between species, the more they have been frustrated.”

Moreover, one of my favorite quotes from an article entitled Paleontology and Uniformitarianism:

✔ “Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.”

BOOK: “Darwin’s Enigma,” by Luther Sunderland (free online: http://www.creationism.org/books/sunderland/DarwinsEnigma/)

PROSELYTIZING

I am merely continuing the conversation. You mentioned God is un-provable. However, God entered into creation, thus — giving us a verifiable way of proving the existence of Himself. You put the onus on someone (happened to be me) to explain a way that we can prove His existence as much as we can prove Augustus Caesar existed. If this is proselytizing, then so be it.

BOOK: “The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus,” by Gary R. Habermas and Michael Licona.

OCCAM’S RAZOR

Both Dr. William Lane Craig and Dr. J.P. Moreland use it to prove God. the earliest version is Aristotle, and Galileo Galilei and Albert Einstein used it. Remember, Einstein said, “I’m not an atheist and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist,” this doesn’t leave too many options.

BOOK: “The Case for a Creator,” by Lee Strobel.

 

FISH STORIES

The actual change in the study was by artificial selection (man caused — intelligence), leading to this truism:

Note that this is not evolution because the selection pressure—which is essentially an artificially-imposed version of “natural selection”—simply favors certain genes over others; it cannot generate any new genetic information. Neither such ‘artificial’ nor ‘natural’ selection can turn plaice into people; it can only operate on (i.e. cull out) genetic information that already exists.

Stephen Jay Gould called them “just-so stories” (also called an ad hoc fallacy, is an unverifiable and unfalsifiable narrative). “How the Daffodil Got Its Trumpet;” “How the Rhinoceros Beetle Got Its Horns;” Etc… evolution has stories, you merely told one yourself: how silversides size proved macro-evolution.

BOOK: “Darwinian Fairytales: Selfish Genes, Errors of Heredity, and Other Fables of Evolution,” by David Stove.

DEGREES/BACKGROUND

You seem to reject positions taken because of the persons degree or teaching position, or whether they are religious or not. So, here is a short list of biologists who are mostly creationists and some I.D.’ers:

• Dr. Arthur Ernest Wilder-Smith (Ph.D. in physical organic chemistry at University of Reading, England; Dr.es.Sc. in pharmacological sciences from Eidgenossische Technische Hochschule (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology) in Zurich; D.Sc. in pharmacological sciences from University of Geneva)
• Dr. Jerry R. Bergman (Ph.D. student, department of chemistry Miami University, Oxford, Ohio; Ph.D. in human biology from Columbia Pacific University, San Rafael, California; Ph.D. in measurement and evaluation, minor in psychology, from Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan)
• Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson, Biology (Ph.D. in cell and developmental biology from Harvard Medical School)
• Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
• Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
• Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
• Dr. Rob Carter, Marine Biology (Ph.D., University of Miami)
• Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience (Ph.D. in Neuroscience from Case Western Reserve University, School of Medicine)
• Dr. Andrew J. Fabich, Microbiology
• Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology (Ph.D., Indiana University)
• Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
• Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology (Ph.D, University of Memphis)
• Dr. Arthur Jones, Biology (Ph.D., University of Birmingham)
• Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
• Dr. Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Professor of genetics at Yale University, head of Molecular Biology laboratory of the Russian Academy of Sciences
• Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
• Dr. Ariel A. Roth, Biology (Ph.D. in biology from the University of Michigan)
• Dr. Timothy G. Standish, Biology (Ph.D. in biology and public policy from George Mason University)
• Dr. Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
• Dr. Henry Zuill, Biology (Ph.D. in biology from Loma Linda University)
• Dr. Frank Marsh, Biology
• Dr. Jonathan Wells, Biology (molecular and cell biology from the University of California at Berkeley)
• Dr. Lee Spencer, Biology
• Dr. Chris D. Osborne, Biology (Ph.D. in biology from Loma Linda University)
• Dr. David Menton, Biology (Ph.D .in Biology from Brown University)
• Dr. John W. Klotz, Genetics (Ph.D. in genetics from the University of Pittsburgh)
• Dr. Pierre Gunnar Jerlström, Molecular Biology (Ph.D. in molecular biology, Griffith University, Queensland, Australia)
• Dr. Karen E. Jensen, Biology (Ph.D. in biology from Loma Linda University)
• Dr. Wayne Frair, Biochemistry (Ph.D. in Biochemical Taxonomy from the Rutgers University)
• Dr. Daniel Criswell, Molecular Biology (Ph.D., University of Montana)
• Dr. Kenneth B. Cumming, Biology (Ph.D. [and M.S.] from Harvard)
• Dr. Art Chadwick, Biology (Ph.D., University of Miami)
• Dr. Michael E. Brown, Biology (Ph.D. in biology with an emphasis in molecular biology from Loma Linda University)
• Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin, Biology (Ph.D. in molecular and cell biology from the University of Texas)

BOOK: “In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation,” by John F. Ashton, ed.

My Discussion with Professor Tom Melendy (Part 1)

Published by Papa Giorgio

I was recently in a long discussion/debate with Tom Melendy, Ph.D. Molecular Biology, on the FaceBook page of a reporter. It is quite long and in-depth… I will include it all here as both a record for myself to reference in the future (for instance I lost the specified debate info I had with a professor of history at the University of Michigan about the Iraq war — many of my responses are encapsulated in my page entitled WMD); and to show others there are good responses to ideas many think are settled science ~ really settled “scientism.” I also post this here because Tom has taken positions and defended some things I think are questionable… but I am no scientist or specialist in the sciences. So this is posted here in order for others to access and dissect (hello Creation.com?!). A definition for scientism that exudes from the below conversation was made by an atheist, and it is apt here:

If science really is permanently committed to methodological naturalism – the philosophical position that restricts all explanations in science to naturalistic explanations – it follows that the aim of science is not generating true theories. Instead, the aim of science would be something like: generating the best theories that can be formulated subject to the restriction that the theories are naturalistic. More and more evidence could come in suggesting that a supernatural being exists, but scientific theories wouldn’t be allowed to acknowledge that possibility.

Bradley Monton, author of Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design ~ Apologetics315 h/t

This conversation started when a reporter, Virginia Heffernan, who has written for the New York Times, Slate, and currently writes for Yahoo News, came out as a creationist — of sorts. I say “of sorts” because even though she takes a creationist position, it is one taken on minimal understanding. I do not point this out as being a bad thing, people often get busy with schooling, careers, and family and lose the time to investigate the grounds and positions of ones own faith.  That being said, when someone is then challenged on a subject what often happens is they will abandon their previously held position in lieu of what they think is a more informed position. I touch on the “new medias” influence in this regards in the opening chapter of my book:

The importance of knowing, defining, and dissecting worldviews in our electronic age is more important today than ever.  The internet brings a myriad of religious and political opinions right into our living rooms daily. What we were able to confront, and if one so desired, to stop at their doorstep, is now with a touch of a button in our living rooms, children’s bedrooms, our cell phones, and the like, routing the old filter of that doorstep.  Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, all these words have entered our vocabulary in less than a decade and they offer a plethora of chances to encounter the world as never before.

Here is a little biographical background of Dr. Melendy:

Thomas Melendy, Ph.D., associate professor of microbiology and immunology… at the University at Buffalo (SUNY), have been elected fellows of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the world’s largest general scientific society and publisher of the journal Science. he among 450 scientists selected by their peers this year for their “meritorious efforts to advance science or its applications.”

This is what happens often times when children leave a low information cocoon of faith via their parents and their local church and sit in a classroom like that of Dr. Melendy’s. The onus is then, as I see it, on each person of faith to step up to the plate and learn their faith as well as a guy would learn about their favorite sports team or a woman would learn about a character in a novel. In other words, conversation about one’s faith should flow as easily as talking about — say, the Angels baseball team or a Jane Austen novel.

Dr. Adler…

who was Chairman and Cofounder with Max Weismann of the Center for the Study of The Great Ideas and Editor in Chief of its journal Philosophy is Everybody’s Business, Founder and Director of the Institute for Philosophical Research, Chairman of the Board of Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica, Editor in Chief of the Great Books of the Western World and The Syntopicon: An Index to the Great Ideas, Editor of The Great Ideas Today (all published by Encyclopedia Britannica), Co-Founder and Honorary Trustee of The Aspen Institute, past Instructor at Columbia University, Professor Emeritus at the University of Chicago (1930-52)

… was no “dummy,” and said the following about our faith:

“I suspect that most of the individuals who have religious faith are content with blind faith. They feel no obligation to understand what they believe. They may even wish not to have their beliefs disturbed by thought. But if God in whom they believe created them with intellectual and rational powers that impose upon them the duty to try to understand the creed of their religion. Not to do so is to verge on superstition.”

Morimer J. Adler, “A Philosopher’s Religious Faith,” in, Kelly James Clark, ed., Philosophers Who Believe: The Spiritual Journeys of 11 Leading Thinkers (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 207

So I give kudos to Virginia Heffernan for having the tenacity to “keep the faith,” but this should be a lesson to all who read this that YOU should take the time to know how to defend, explain, and encapsulate your faith well to both inoculate yourself against being tossed by the waves and blown around by every wind of teaching; as well as showing others that faith is not blind, but in what we know.

…and other resources at:

So with this short admonition and the short list of books below to get the person who searches after truth thinking, and thinking well, I will document the professors and my debate/discussion. I start the discussion before I enter for clarity/reference:

Jim K. Starts out by saying

Tom Melendy Gravity is called a law and can be and has been observed. Macro-Evolution has never been observed. I believe in intelligent design This can include creation all the way to evolution by a God. If you want scientific proof on this watch “I do not have enough faith to be an atheist” by Frank Turek. Here are a few youtube websites for you http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFzJ8beUDvg

I will emphasize the point that concerned me:

Tom Melendy responds

Jim, Macro evolution has been observed in the laboratory under controlled conditions – within just a few generations you can “breed” fish to be miniature fish, which reproduce and “grow” up while never getting bigger than the size they were bred for. And Jim, I NEVER said that belief in evolution in inconsistent with a belief in God. I am merely saying that the case for evolution is overwhelming and cannot be denied by any rational person who bothers to examine the evidence. Belief in God is based on faith, not evidence; and it would be entirely appropriate to believe that evolution, like the other laws of the universe, are merely the hands of God shaping the world we live in. As for referring to evolution as “intelligent design”, I would have to agree – there can be no more intelligent a design program than the evolution that created the amazing diversity of life on this planet including mankind himself.

James P. hops in

Er Tom, as a biologist I would call what you’ve described as ‘artificial selection’ – not ‘evolution’. In the wild such a change might be called ‘speciation’ if the two varieties didn’t interbreed to produce fertile offspring, however that’s not ‘evolution’ either. There is no evidence for evolution whatsoever – and that’s coming from someone who has studied the subject in detail for 15 years.

Tom Melendy responds

“Er” I’m a PhD biologist myself James, and I’ve been studying evolution for 25 years. Evolution is a result of the combination natural selection (and yes, in the lab it would be artificial – same thing except in nature you have to wait until conditions change so selection is usually slower) AND speciation. Speciation is a much more complicated process that occurs on a much slower time scale. By definition (when two sub-species can no longer productively interbreed to create a group that can reproduce) – however, things are more complicated than that! As any biologist will tell you, the devil is in the details – some “speciation” can be a result of behavior – two subspecies may no longer ever mate due to changes in mating behavior and/or geographic separation. Others are due to cytogenetic changes – while a donkey and a horse are genetically 99+% identical at the gene sequence level, the cytogentic changes make their common hybrid (the mule) generally sterile (non-dysjunction during gamete formation), EXCEPT in a very rare cases where the chromosomes happen to align in just the right formation – there are a few documented and proven cases where mules were able to effectively cross-breed with horses or donkeys. Horses and donkeys are far down the speciation path so sexually reproductive hybrids are extraordinarily rare. Zebras show an intermediate cytogenetic phenotype/structure between those of horses and donkeys, and as such their progeny (zebroids) have much greater success at matings with either parental species. The “mules” for lion-tiger matings (ligers and tigons) are fairly functional reproductively and can fairly readily interbreed with their parent species (so much more like the zebroids), so these are less far down the speciation path, even though tigers and lions are still considered different species. There are examples of interspecies hybrids that can reproduce, thereby creating a hybrid species. This shows cases where the two species are even more closely related. One example is the American Red Wolf, which is a hybrid between the Gray Wolf and the Coyote. (There are other know cases too.) And finally there are sub-species which don’t generally mate, but can and when they do they produce offspring that can mate with either parental species or their own hybrid-type; examples of this would be Bengal and Siberian tigers mating or Kodiak bear or Grizzly bear matings with Polar Bears. The time-scale require for speciation is much greater than that for natural selection, but is the aspect of evolution that drives speciation (essentially ‘nails down’ the changes that build up over time in sub-species, and starts preventing backcrosses from homgenizing the two species). These cytogenetic changes are much like those that occur in all animals during the early stages of somatic cancers, but of course only the most conservative changes can be heritable (any gametes with the more significant cytogenetic changes would not survive development). So as you can see James, while it is not feasible to reproduce the ‘slow’ aspect of evolution (cytogenetic speciation) in the laboratory (because of the great time scales required), there is a wealth of evidence of how this process occurs in the natural world around us – showing species and sub-species at all levels of speciation. There is an extraordinary wealth of proof of evolution not only at the fossil level (which is dramatically greater than the state 20 years ago, the supposed “holes” creationists point to no longer exist), but also now at the genetic level (as many extinct species have had their genomes sequences with new high-throughput sequencing techniques, many within just the last couple of years), and this information complements and clarifies the fossil data wonderfully. And here I’ve told you about examples of speciation that are currently ongoing in the world today, and they are present in a wide range of levels. Anyone with a biology background who claims to see no evidence of evolution is being willfully blind!

Tom Melendy again responds

And Jon, you can put whichever “label” you want on it, model or theory, I don’t really care – either way it’s happened throughout the natural history of this world, and it continues to happen today.

This is where I wade in, and I concern myself with a single point that takes a while to get to. I keep this point alive throughout.

ME

Tom Melendy, I missed the observation MACRO evolutionary proof. Please explain what this observation has been. Is there a peer reviewed article you can refer me to.

Tom Melendy responds

read it again, there’s an extensive outline of the paleontological, genetic, cytogenetic evidence. If you can’t understand it, let me know the part you can’t understand and I can explain it to you.

Me

Is there a peer reviewed article on the Macro evolutionary evidence observed in the laboratory? I get every reasonably priced science mag (the Nature journal is too expensive for me). I have about 5,000 books in my home library, many are materialist — from Grecian times till today, neo-Darwinian topics (Mayr, Gould, Asimov, Miller, etc.), and other texts. About half of my library are views opposite of mine.

In other words, I have yet to meet, read, or watch proof of one species, say the Canis lupus, changing into a Felis silvestris catus. Centimeter changes in beaks of birds on an island is micro evolution (change within species).

Canis lupus being able to mate with the Canus domesticus, or Polar Bears with Grizzlies, or rabbits separated by a canyon [they are different species… but can mate… just cannot due to separation] … these are the same kind: in other words, a rabbit, is a rabbit, is a rabbit.

A Great Dane and a Chihuahua cannot mate, but they are still dogs.

Take note Tom refers to his education and position a lot. There is an ego, or, an emotion, involved here that drives his position more than the evidence. Although God is not mentioned yet, the topic is on “creationism,” so the below quote is perfect to set the stage for the “bias” behind the bias:

Naturalism and materialism are not scientific conclusions; rather, they are scientific premises. They are not discovered in nature but imposed upon nature. In short, they are articles of faith. Here is Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a priori commitment, a commitment [a faith] — a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

Dinesh D’Souza points to this in his recent book, What’s So Great about Christianity (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 2007), 161 (emphasis added).

I wish to note I was corrected a bit on dogs, but this is the main point… “species” is not well-defined. A good questions and response is this one from Yahoo Answers:

QUESTION:

Can 2 same animals from different species mate and reproduce?

For example

  • Can a great horn owl mate with a snowy owl?
  • Can black crickets mate with brown crickets?

ANSWER:

Generally, animals within the same genus can breed – for example, that most famous of hybrids, the mule, is a cross between a male donkey and female horse, both of which belong to the genus Equus (the offspring of a male horse and female donkey is called a hinny, incidentally). Depending on how closely related they are, species in different genera but the same family can sometimes interbreed too – for example, the puma and the leopard both belong to the family Felidae, but the genera Puma and Panthera respectively, and can interbreed to produce a hybrid known as a pumapard.

Being closely related basically means that two species share a greater amount of genetic material with each other than with other animals. Beyond family level, two species cease to share enough genetic material for the egg and sperm to ‘recognise’ each other, which is why you can’t breed animals from different families like, say, a dog and a cat – a dog sperm simply wouldn’t be able to fertilise a cat egg, and vice versa.

In response to one of your answers, I’d just like to point out that it is not necessary for animals to have the same number of chromosomes in order to breed – horses and donkeys have different numbers of chromosomes, for example. The difference in chromosome number between the parent species is the reason many hybrids are sterile, as it means they cannot produce functional sex cells, but it does not prevent the existence of the hybrid itself.

Also, the definition of a species as a group of animals that can interbreed and produce fertile young is now recognised as being too simplistic. For example, all members of the genus Canis – wolves, dogs, dingoes, coyotes and jackals – can interbreed and produce fertile young. Under the old definition, this would mean that a grey wolf and a coyote, say, are the same species, and this is clearly not the case – physically, behaviourally and genetically, they are different species. They’re just very closely related. There’s a lot more to defining a species than just who can breed with whom.

Tom Melendy

I just explained to you “speciation”, which is the basis behind macro-evolution. I showed you how different species can sometimes mate (Canis lupus can mate with Canis latrans – two different species – and produce offspring that can reproduce with themselves), I explained as you move farther away evolutionarily the species can hybridize and hybrids show some, but decreasing ability, to successfully mate as the species are more distantly related (are you going to tell me lions are tigers, or zebras are horses or donkeys?) I pointed out how a macroevolutionary experiment cannot be done in the laboratory because of the time frame required for cytogenetic changes to occur (do you know what those are?). So unless you can provide a time machine, those experiments cannot be completed for many lifetimes. But that doesn’t mean that you can’t evaluate and measure the genetic and cytogenetic changes that are in the midst of occurring throughout the world in the many examples I’ve given of species, sub-species, and closely related species showing every step along the way toward speciation. In spite of your readings, you seem to lack some basic understanding of not only biology, but how to objectively evaluate biological data. But I guess that’s the case isn’t it – reading the Bible does not make one a minister, reading biology books does not make one a biologist, anymore than knowing an opera by heart makes one a opera performer. Reading something is different than the skill set to actually DO it. I am a biologist trained (and hired) at some of the best institutions in the world – I don’t write the textbooks, I do the research that ends up being written about by textbook authors.

ME

Yes, Lions are tigers. They are cats, whether they can breed or not. They are a kind.

First Statement by You:

1) Macro evolution has been observed in the laboratory under controlled conditions – within just a few generations you can “breed” fish to be miniature fish, which reproduce and “grow” up while never getting bigger than the size they were bred for.

Second Statement:

2) I pointed out how a macroevolutionary experiment cannot be done in the laboratory because of the time frame required for cytogenetic changes to occur.

Miniaturizing a fish is not macro-evolution!? You have a Ph.D. alright — in obfuscating terms.

MACROEVOLUTION

  1. American Heritage Science Dictionary: “Evolution that results in the formation of a new taxonomic group above the level of a species.”
  2. From an old 1962 textbook (Holt, Rinehart, Winston, [1962]… probably when you were going through school?) Evolution and Genetics: “The Modern Theory of Evolution:Quantum evolution, also known as mega- and macroevolution, is the term applied to the rapid shift of a population to a new equilibrium distinctly unlike the ancestral condition, thus leading to the origin of higher taxonomic categories such as new orders and classes.”
  3. What Is Evolution, Ernst Mayr: “Evolution above the species level; the evolution of higher taxa and the production of evolutionary novelties, such as new structures.”

Species is the key… you seem to be conflating it a bit.

So are you positing that this “smaller fish,” which in one breath you say is evidence of “Quantum evolution” a new taxonomy? Or is it [Quantum evolution] not able to be done in the laboratory because of the time frame required for cytogenetic changes to occur is not long enough in human terms?

So, Macroevolution is not observable, correct?

Tom Melendy

re-read!!! – I never said “macro” evolution could be observed. I was referring to the microevolutionary changes. When you brought up macro I started telling you about the cytogenetic changes required for speciation or macroevolution. Both steps, micro and macro, are required for evolution. Pay attention!

Man, you are not a very astute student are you?

Yes, according to your own citation above, lions and tigers are separate species. As I stated above. Very good Sean.

ME

Let us get into the nitty-gritty later, I want to define terms first.

SPECIES and MACROEVOLUTION:

Species is not well defined. Example: Canis Domesticus (say, a, German Shepherd) and Canis Lupus (wolf) are classified as two separate species. But they can interbreed (i.e. a Wolf and a German Shepherd). But a Chihuahua and a Great Dane cannot breed, but they are both Canis Domesticus (the same species). The arctic hair cannot breed with the Florida hair, but both breed with the Dakota hair. Evolutionists recognize certain bowerbirds as distinct species even though they often interbreed.

Or consider the case of two different kinds of squirrels separated by the Grand Canyon. The Kaibab squirrel inhabits the north side of the canyon, while the Abert squirrel inhabits the south side. It seems evident the two descended from one original population. Rarely, however, can squirrels from both populations come together, and thus there is no interbreeding between them. And, for some time biologists have disagreed as to whether the squirrels had reached the level of two separate species.

Look, you could go to Galapagos Islands and get a pair of finches and bring them back to a laboratory and just let them have sex. After a few generations you will have small beaked, medium beaked, large beaked finches. The information is already in there genome, nothing new was created, specificity was lost if anything. Now if you simulate a drought, like on Galapagos, so that the seeds become hard and more beak strength is needed to open them, then of course the larger beaked finch will survive. A creationist came up with the survival of the fittest twenty-four years prior to Darwin. After all the other “parent” finches die off, you are left with only large beaked finches in the laboratory. This is not evolution; no new information was gained in the process. There are limits to its change, strep-throat may change into a flesh eating virus, but it loss specificity to get to that point or already had the information in its genome. It’s still strep-throat.

That finch didn’t turn into a dinosaur; that dog didn’t turn into a cat; that ape didn’t turn into a man, etc.. The genetic barriers wont and don’t allow it. You can post all the sites in the world, but you will never be able to find one proof of macroevolution in the fossil record or in the living world. All we have ever seen is what evolutionists’ call “subspeciation” (variation within a type), never “transpeciation” (change from one type to others). The primrose is a prime example of my point. The alleged new species of primrose that de Vries thought he had “discovered” were not new species at all but rather mere variations of the same species.

This “sport” (a certain primrose that de Vries created), with it’s doubled chromosome [no new information was added, it merely doubled the information that was already there], is still a primrose. Stickleback fish may diversify into fresh-water dwellers and salt–water dwellers, but both remain sticklebacks. One fruit fly may breed on apple trees and another on hawthorn trees, but both remain fruit flies. Speciation is a means of creating diversity within types of living things, but macroevolution is much more than diversity.

Macroevolution requires an increase of the gene pool, the addition of new genetic information, whereas the means to speciation discussed above represent the loss of genetic information (how so?). Both physical and ecological isolation produce varieties by cutting a small population off from its parent population and building a new group from the more limited genetic information contained in the small population. A large population carries genetic reserve, a wealth of concealed recessive genes. In a small group cut off from the parent population, some of these recessive traits may be expressed more often. This makes for interesting diversity, but it should not blind us to the fact that the total genetic variability in the small group is reduced!.

The appearance of reproductively isolated populations represents microevolution, not macro-evolution. Vertical change – to a new level of complexity – requires the input of additional genetic information. Can that information – the ensembles of new genes to make wrens, rabbits, and Hawthorne trees be gleaned from random mutations?

Thus far, there appears to be good evidence that the roles mutations are able to play are severely restricted by and within the existing higher-level blueprint of the organism’s whole genome.

To go from one-celled organisms to a human being means that information must be added to the genetic messages at each step of the way. Mechanisms for the loss of genetic information cannot be used as support for a theory requiring vast increases of genetic information.

Speciation is actually akin to what breeders do. They isolate a small group of plants or animals and force them to interbreed, cutting them off from the larger gene pool to which they belong. A century of breeding testifies to the fact that this produces limited change only. It does produce the open-ended change required by Darwinian evolution. Some think, as do I, that the extinction of the dinosaurs occurred because they didn’t have the genetic diversity to adapt to environmental changes.

Percival Davis & Dean H. Kenyon, with Charles B. Thaxton as Academic Editor, Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins, 2nd Edition (Dallas, TX: Haughton Publishing Co., 1993), 19-20.

Tom Melendy

I disagree with the very opening aspect of this text. As I cited before while Great Danes and Chihuahuas cannot breed it is only due to physical limitations – artificial insemination would result in a perfectly viable mutt. This is no different than two sub-species which do not interbreed only because they’re on different canyon ridges and do not cross the canyon. This text is ‘popular’ science, it is not a text used by scientists. Some things are misleading.

Macroevolution does NOT require an “increase in the gene pool” – the gene pool of the horse and donkey are virtually identical, yet they are separate species (yet closely related enough to produce sterile offspring). The reason they are different species is due to the cytogenetic changes (note that does NOT involve additional genetic material or a greater gene pool).

ME

Tom, Evolutions say I came from a rock. In fact, it says — ultimately — that a South-East Asian Man [dark completion] who just got home from a hard days work [BO: body-odor] came from an odorless, colorless gas. This man can sit down and read Aristotle and learn about the laws of logic that precede any scientific adventure and that are not known to the senses (law of excluded middle, law of identity, law of non-contradiction, etc), and use these “mind” (I would say “Mind”) reasoning tools to critique a fallacious statement… that, this south-east Asian man would expect someone half-way around the world to be able to understand.

So information added to the gene pool is not the topic I wish to zero in on, yet.

You are telling me that a donkey and a horse are a donkey ARE proof of macroevolution? You are telling me as well that Cats (Felidae) are a diverse group of carnivores that includes domestic cats, lions, tigers, ocelots, jaguars, caracals, leopards, mountain lions, lynx and many other groups of cats are not the same kind?

Let me restate that, wolves and a few other dog kind (Canidae) have all the genetic information in them that breeders are then able to change through intelligent input. So a Chihuahuas is still a Canidae, but with much less specified complexity — the bottom of the gene pool so-to-speak. [Left to its own devices with no help from man, the wolf, coyote, etc would survive, but the Chihuahuas would probably die out.]

You seem to be conflating “species” with other classification titles (http://tinyurl.com/3npkel8) [*SEE YOUR OWN STATEMENT BELOW* ~ not capitalized to yell, merely to emphasize]. I want you to be clear and concise so a high school student from L.A. Unified can understand you: “are you saying small changes in specie level adaptation (centimeter beak change in birds, or Brussels sprouts to hit a bit closer to home to your point [http://creation.com/eat-your-brussels-sprouts]) are more than that, they are evidence of macroevolution?

…. I still think this statement by you @Tom Melendy is a bit of an overreach:

Jim, Macro evolution has been observed in the laboratory under controlled conditions – within just a few generations you can “breed” fish to be miniature fish, which reproduce and “grow” up while never getting bigger than the size they were bred for.

Please give me the name of the fish you referenced… and through observed “quantum evolution, also known as mega- and macroevolutionary” what other Order this fish became under observation. You see Tom, we are still at one of your opening statements, which you have not clearly, eruditely, and concisely explained. So you lied to Jim? Or you were mistaken in your wording? What.

Tom Melendy

My apologies for the lack of clarity on my part. When this thread first started we were talking about common evolution in the lab. This is commonly seen with microorganisms. Someone asked what about non-microorganisms. I responded that you could see macro evolution in the lab in fish (macro just to differentiate from micro-organisms). Once you began defining your terms as micro and macro evolution as being the small changes due to variation and selection, versus the larger changes that produce different species that of course made my previous point unclear – I was referring to micro-evolution (variation and selection) being studied in a macroorganism (fish). It wasn’t an over-reach, it was a miscommunication due to us not having established an accepted nomenclature prior to that statement. Often different branches of science will utilize the same term to mean different things in different fields. As to your question of which fish – Atlantic silversides. Here’s the website showing you the surprising result that within just a handful of generations the fish size could be decreased dramatically. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/conover_04

Tom posts a few followups

….Once you defined what you were discussing through the terms of micro versus macro evolution, all of my other statements made still stand as written

….As to your longer question about evolution above and how it relates to species and higher orders. There are many elements you have of confusion there. One simple one that makes me concerned is that you state a chihuahua has “much less specified complexity” amongst the Canids. Not at all true! It’s complexity is just a great, but everything has just been bred to be on a smaller scale – larger doesn’t inherently mean more complexity Sean.

As for your comment about my conflating species with genus or family – that is exactly my point Sean! The very definition of evolution is the creation of new species. The formal definition of a species is that it cannot interbreed and create viable young with another species. Yet we know of several cases where that does indeed occur – you give some examples yourself Canis lupus and Canis familiaris. Whereas most species do follow the rule that they cannot interbreed with others at all. There are other genuses or even families of organisms where there is still some interbreeding that can occur, but their ability to produce offspring vary – and I gave you examples of different species of bear that can produce viable offspring, but different species and even genuses of the horse family that can produce offspring with varying degrees of ability to interbreed successfully. I have even given you some information on why these various equines produce progeny of differing ability to interbreed – their speciation is being driven by cytogentic changes – in the cases of this group horses, donkeys and zebras all have very similar genetics (about 99% of their genes are the same) yet those genes are divided up amongst a different number of chromosomes (donkeys have more smaller chromosomes, horses the fewest larger chromosomes, zebras are intermediate in number and size). These cytogenetic differences are what limits production of offspring with a full ability to reproduce (due to nondysjunction during meiosis, production of gametes). And these are the type of cytogenetic changes that, as I was describing earlier, over time begin to prevent back-crossing, which allows the microevolutionary changes (like those we see with the fish) to over time become more permanent, driving the diversity of the evolutionary tree. My point has been that all these examples show speciation at different stages: while wolves and dog, or wolves and coyotes, are different species (by most criteria), they can still produce viable offspring – they have not truly become fully independent species as per the formal criteria; bears are somewhat similar as polar bears can produce viable offspring with Kodiak bears and grizzly bears and North American brown bears, any offspring produced with European brown bears do not survive to adulthood – speciation was achieved between polar bears and European brown bears, but is incomplete between polar bears and North American brown bears; equines are a third example, where all three discussed, horses, donkeys and zebras – which belong to not just different species, but even different sub-genuses, can produce offspring, but those offspring cannot interbreed successful, and have varying ability to produce offspring with the parent species (donkey-horse, extraordinarily rarely, horse-zebra or donkey-zebra, much more often) – so the equines are much further down the speciation path than Canis or Ursid, yet not nearly as far as some species which cannot produce offspring at all. So THIS Sean, is macroevolution – no one would say a polar bear is the same species as a grizzly or a brown bear – yet they are only partway along the path to speciation. Similarly donkeys and zebras are clearly not the same species as horses, yet these are further along the way to speciation. These are the examples where I’m showing you that evolution is occurring in the here and now, and that we can see different groups of animals at different stages of speciation. This is the best we can do in describing the individual steps in macroevolution as we cannot carry out speciation/macroevolution in the laboratory because of the time frame required to generate stable cytogenetic changes in organisms – selection can occur over just a few generations, cytogenetic changes occur over generations upon generations.

Tom has FINALLY mentioned the specific experiment he mentioned, as well as backing away from his previous statement of macroevolution being observed. But if you notice he beats around the bush quite a bit to still try and “save face” at the same time of still trying to obfuscate the issue of species.

ME

Okay, that helps. The changes you mentioned were merely within a species and no new information was added to the genome, merely “rearranged” (layman terms) to get a specified output. In fact, this arrangement could be considered “less specified” from the parent population (like the Chihuahua). Examples of bacteria resisting anti-biotics exemplify this loss of information to the parent population/strain. Darwinism requires the opposite.

Thank you for the link to the fish, this helps. All creationists, intelligent design adherents, and the neo-Darwinian and cladists believe in change within species. If an evolutionists says evolution equals “change,” and then shows an experiment where no new information was added to the genome. nothing in that fish experiment disproves or challenges the creationist perspective:

…. For some years now, many fisheries management authorities around the world have instituted legal minimum size requirements for various fish species. Thus anglers must return ‘undersized’ fish to the water unharmed. Similarly, commercial fishermen use large-meshed nets to spare the smaller fish—with the aim of ensuring the long-term viability of the fishery.

However, the fish that are genetically predisposed to mature at larger sizes are the ones most likely to be caught before they can reproduce. Thus there has been a strong selection pressure favouring scrawny fish that never reach the minimum legal size. Hence the genes for late-maturing larger-sized fish have been progressively lost from many fish populations, leaving early-maturing smaller-sized ones to dominate the gene pool. (So, ironically, by catching only the biggest fish and letting the others go, humans have unintentionally selected against that which they desire most!)

Note that this is not evolution because the selection pressure—which is essentially an artificially-imposed version of ‘natural selection’—simply favours certain genes over others; it cannot generate any new genetic information. Neither such ‘artificial’ nor ‘natural’ selection can turn plaice into people; it can only operate on (i.e. cull out) genetic information that already exists.

Fisheries scientists David Conover and Stephan Munch, of the State University of New York, observed that size-specific culling of Atlantic silversides rapidly changes the genetic makeup of the population.7 After just four generations, fish populations from which the largest 90% of silversides were removed before breeding averaged just half the size of fish in populations from which the smallest 90% had been culled. In other words, removing big fish soon results in a population of little fish (and vice versa).

This is not evolution, as the genes for big or little fish were already present in the population beforehand. Note that the limits to how big or little the fish can be in the final population are determined by the amount of pre-existing genetic variety. Conover and Munch wrote: ‘Management tools that preserve natural genetic variation [i.e. pre-existing variety] are necessary for long-term sustainable yield.’ In other words, we need to leave at least some of the big fish in the water, so that their desirable genes (from a human perspective) remain in the fish population.

Despite this anti-evolutionary insight, their research paper refers to fish demonstrating ‘evolutionary effects’ and having ‘evolved rapidly’. That last claim took many of their fellow evolutionists by surprise. David Conover reported: ‘Even some fisheries’ scientists have been unwilling to accept that evolution is happening within a few fish generations.’ ….

http://creation.com/smaller-fish-to-fry

I make this point in my earliest debate with a neo-Darwinist, in which I end with:

Theodosius Dobzhansky, one of the twentieth centuries leading Darwinists, acknowledged this:

“And yet, a majority of mutations, both those arising in laboratories and those stored in natural populations, produce deteriorations of viability, hereditary diseases, and monstrosities. Such changes, it would seem, can hardly serve as evolutionary building blocks.”

Mr. Hitchings: “On the face of it, then, the prime function of the genetic system would seem to be to resist change: to perpetuate the species in a minimally adapted form of response to altered conditions, and if at all possible to get things back to normal. The role of natural selection is usually a negative one; to destroy the few mutant individuals that threaten the stability of the species.”

Goldschmidt said: “It is true that nobody thus far has produced a new species or genus, etc., by macromutation. It is equally true that nobody has ever produced even a species by selection of micromutaions.”

Goldschmidt would have known – he bread gypsy moths for twenty years and a million generations in various environments. All he ever got was more gypsy moths. Anyone who thinks that an accumulation of mutations (information-losing processes) can lead to Macroevolution (a massive net gain of information) “is like the merchant who lost a little money on every sale but thought he could make it up on volume.” (Spetner)

(I have a .com now, this is my old blog: http://religiopoliticaltalk.blogspot.com/2007/11/one-of-my-first-debate-style-responses.html)

So the example of the fish is something that if defined properly doesn’t support the grand changes that Darwinism implies. Nor, if properly defined, no creationist finds anything wrong with it… other than someone takes this loss of information and applies it to the past spuriously [stepping out of science and using a meta-narrative to state something that is unobservable] to say, “see, I am related to a banana in the tree of life.” THAT is bananas.

About the author of the linked Creation.com article:

B.Ag.Sc. (Hons) [University of Adelaide, South Australia]—Honours thesis title: The effects of applied nitrate on nitrogen fixation by subterranean clover (1982)

Ph.D. [University of New England, New South Wales, Australia]—Thesis title: The contribution of tree legumes to the nitrogen economy and forage production in the humid tropics (1988)

Dr. David Catchpoole was once an ardent atheistic evolutionist, before being challenged to look critically at the problems of evolution, and the scientific evidence for creation and the Bible.

Tom Melendy

Dr. Catchpoole is an expert neither on evolution nor on genome integrity (one of my fields of expertise). He is not qualified.

ME

I am merely pointing out that others exist with advanced degrees (that you mentioned about yourself) who write on “change,” does it matter if a young earth creationist got us to the moon, invented the MRI, and is a leading pediatrician who had a movie made about him (“Gifted Hands”). Belief about origins (historical science) and science in the lab are thus — provably — two areas that are separate.

I merely argue that “Darwinism” is a historical science that IS THE MATRIX that must be placed on the Atlantic silversides [and the loss of specificity compared to the parent population] in order to church out of the hopper “evidence” for Darwinian evolution. Circular.

Tom Melendy

And you’re wrong again, resistance to antibiotics is due to a GAIN of genetic material, not a loss. You talk a good game Sean, but the fact is that you don’t know enough facts about basic biology to support your thoughts. This is what we need to explain to college students who figure that once they read a text and can pass an exam, they must be experts; and why can’t they just do whatever they want in life (being an expert on something) because they can always ‘find’ the answers they need online or in a book. The problem is that you need a solid basis upon which to build – if you don’t have the basic material you really can’t support your ideas and arguments. (kind of like needing to have a vocabulary of words before you can write a paper). You Sean have collected a great number of books and ideas, but you don’t REALLY know the science behind what you’re talking about – which leaves your theories and positions full of holes/flaws. It’s been an interesting discussion but I can’t continue this indefinitely – I have work to do. If you don’t understand the concept that evolution is a continuum of small changes and selections, punctuated by larger cytogenetic changes that prevent back-breeding, ultimately leading to speciation (different species). And if you can’t understand how all I’ve shown you supports both aspects of that – then I suggest you head back to school for a degree in Biological Sciences – you clearly have the interest.

ME

When I say “loss of specificity to the parent population,” what I mean is that if it were possible to kill all Canidae’s except the Chihuahua… wolves would be extinct. the information left in the Chihuahua is a loss that can never be regained. It is less specified.

Tom Melendy

No Sean, your last comment is very wrong. It wasn’t their advanced degrees in other areas that make them capable in other things. In each case those individuals had to study and learn a whole new area to become capable. Furthermore, development does not always come from an expert – some people do not full understand what they develop or contribute to. Invention does not always come from the greatest knowledge.

ME

I have to start work. This is a great example, bacteria, for the conversation. Will check in this evening. thank you for your patience and willingness to talk.

Tom Melendy

That’s actually not true either Sean – are you saying that the genetic information in a wolf contains that of the chihuahau, but not the reverse? That’s not true at ALL. You don’t understand basic genetics. Selective breeding over enough time can create either from the other.

ME

Okay, Home. I would love to get your thoughts on this.

DOGS

No, there is specificity lost from the parent population:

Artificial breeding/selection is a good analogy. The original mongrel dog/wolf population had more genetic variety than any of the many individual breeds of dog today, but because of continual mixing up of the genes/alleles due to free inter-breeding (out-breeding), the outward appearance of the dogs/wolves would not generally have shown extreme variety. But selecting rare dogs with Chihuahua-like features and breeding them together (inbreeding) for many generations results in the concentration of alleles that give Chihuahua-likeness and the elimination of a lot of the other alleles—ones for ‘large dog’ for example. So you could never breed a Great Dane from a Chihuahua; the genetic information required has been depleted by the very process that has generated the extreme features.

BACTERIAL RESISTANCE

Bacterium & Evolution II (This is part II of a debate I had)

It has been proven that resistance to many modern antibiotics was present decades before their [the antibiotics] discovery. In 1845, sailors on an ill-fated Arctic expedition were buried in the permafrost and remained deeply frozen until their bodies were exhumed in 1986. Preservation was so complete that six strains of nineteenth-century bacteria found dormant in the contents of the sailors’ intestines were able to be revived! When tested, these bacteria were found to possess resistance to several modern-day antibiotics, including penicillin. Such traits were obviously present prior to penicillin’s discovery, and thus could not be an evolutionary development. (Medical Tribune, December 29, 1988, p. 1, 23.)

In 1998, the National Academy of Sciences published and distributed a book to public schools and other institutions entitled Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D., F.M., wrote a book, Refuting Evolution, which is a topic by topic rebuttal to this Academy of Sciences publication. Under the evidence for evolution in the evolutionist text is the following quote:

The continual evolution of human pathogens has come to pose one of the most serious health problems facing human societies. Many strains of bacteria have become increasingly resistant to antibiotics as natural selection has amplified resistant strains that arose through naturally occurring genetic variation.

Similar episodes of rapid evolution are occurring in many different organisms. Rats have developed resistance to the poison warfain. Many hundreds of insect species and other agricultural pests have evolved resistance to the pesticides used to combat them – even to chemical defenses genetically engineered into plants.

(Sarfati’s reply – any words in the [boxes] are mine):

However, what has this to do with the evolution of new kinds with new genetic information? Precisely nothing. What has happened in many cases is that some bacteria already had the genes for resistance to the antibiotics. In fact, some bacteria obtained by thawing sources which had been frozen before man developed antibiotics have shown to be antibiotic-resistant [6 different antibiotics in fact, penicillin in modern doses – which is way beyond the strength of natural penicillin found in nature]. When antibiotics are applied to a population of bacteria, those lacking resistance are killed, and any genetic information they carry is eliminated. The survivors carry less information [or specificity], but they are all resistant. The same principle applies to rats and insects “evolving” resistance to pesticides. Again, the resistance was already there, and creatures without resistance are eliminated.

[Much like if we killed all dogs (including Canis Domesticus and Canis Lupus) except for Chihuahuas, we would permanently lose the information of the parent population. You could then breed Chihuahuas for a millennium and not get an Irish Wolfhound]

…In other cases, antibiotic resistance is the result of a mutation, but in all known cases, this mutation has destroyed information. It may seem surprising that destruction of information can sometimes help. But one example is resistance to the antibiotic penicillin. Bacteria normally produce an enzyme, penicillinase, which destroys penicillin. The amount of penicillinase is controlled by a gene. There is normally enough produced to handle any penicillin encountered in the wild, but the bacterium is overwhelmed by the amount given to patients. A mutation disabling this controlling gene results in much more penicillinase being produced.

[Thus, the bacteria found frozen in 1845 already had the mutation to overcome modern medical doses of penicillin. So the mutation wasn’t the result of the penicillin in modern doses, thus seemingly becoming resistant… it already had the resistant mutation – informational or specificity losing – in the population. In other words, no new information was added to the parent population!]

…This enables the bacterium to resist the antibiotics but normally, this mutant would be less fit, as it wastes resources by producing unnecessary penicillinase. Another example of acquired antibiotic resistance is the transfer of pieces of genetic material (called Plasmids) between bacteria, even between those of different species. But this is still using pre-existing information, and doesn’t explain its origin.

So the above [first quote] is an example of, as Dr. Lee Spetner would say, “the transfer of resistance genes already extant in bacteria.” I would say as well that the only other example is the building of resistance as a result of losing genetic data because of mutation.

from one of my favorite posts [not mine] on the topic:

The second type of immunity, which comes about as a result of mutation, is not an example of evolution either. Spetner writes:

… [A] microorganism can sometimes acquire resistance to an antibiotic through a random substitution of a single nucleotide… Streptomycin, which was discovered by Selman Waksman and Albert Schatz and first reported in 1944, is an antibiotic against which bacteria can acquire resistance in this way. But although the mutation they undergo in the process is beneficial to the microorganism in the presence of streptomycin, it cannot serve as a prototype for the kind of mutations needed by NDT [Neo-Darwinian Theory]. The type of mutation that grants resistance to streptomycin is manifest in the ribosome and degrades its molecular match with the antibiotic molecule.

In his book Not by Chance, Spetner likens this situation to the disturbance of the key-lock relationship. Streptomycin, just like a key that perfectly fits in a lock, clutches on to the ribosome of a bacterium and inactivates it. Mutation, on the other hand, decomposes the ribosome, thus preventing streptomycin from holding on to the ribosome. Although this is interpreted as “bacteria developing immunity against streptomycin,” this is not a benefit for the bacteria but rather a loss for it. Spetner writes:

This change in the surface of the microorganism’s ribosome prevents the streptomycin molecule from attaching and carrying out its antibiotic function. It turns out that this degradation is a loss of specificity and therefore a loss of information. The main point is that Evolution… cannot be achieved by mutations of this sort, no matter how many of them there are. Evolution cannot be built by accumulating mutations that only degrade specificity.

To sum up, a mutation impinging on a bacterium’s ribosome makes that bacterium resistant to streptomycin. The reason for this is the “decomposition” of the ribosome by mutation. That is, no new genetic information is added to the bacterium. On the contrary, the structure of the ribosome is decomposed, that is to say, the bacterium becomes “disabled.” (Also, it has been discovered that the ribosome of the mutated bacterium is less functional than that of a normal bacterium.) Since this “disability” prevents the antibiotic from attaching onto the ribosome, “antibiotic resistance” develops.

At this point another person chimes in to compliment the tenor of the conversation so-far. Let me say, that the entire discussion was calmly and very little emotional jabs were taken. In most conversations I post the below in order to put in peoples minds that often time — whne sitting behind a keyboard — one tends to apply feelings to the other persons statements that he or she never intended. Which is why this “legal statement,” so-to-speak, typically precedes conversation:

“By-the-by, for those reading this I will explain what is missing in this type of discussion due to the media used. Genuflecting, care, concern, one being upset (does not entail being “mad”), etc… are all not viewable because we are missing each other’s tone, facial expressions, and the like. I afford the other person I am dialoguing with the best of intentions and read his/her comments as if we were out having a talk over a beer at a bar or meeting a friend at Starbucks. (I say this because there seems to be a phenomenon of etiquette thrown out when talking through email or Face Book, lots more public cussing and gratuitous responses.) You will see that often times I USE CAPS — which in www lingo for YELLING. I am not using it this way, I use it to merely emphasize and often times say as much: *not said in yelling tone, but merely to emphasize*. So in all my discussions I afford the best of thought to the other person as I expect he or she would to me… even if dealing with tough subjects as the above. I have had more practice at this than most, and with half-hour pizza, one hour photo and email vs. ‘snail mail,’ know that important discussions take time to meditate on, inculcate, and to process. So be prepared for a good thought provoking discussion if you so choose one with me.”

Continuing

Nick DeM.

this is a remarkable discussion – it is civil!! what a mutation is observed having the ability to do, and what a mutation is observed lacking the ability to do are the strongest reasons to continue questioning macro-evolution(molecules to man). to GIORDANO and MELENDY – your info has been enlightening, and it’s refreshing to see that both of you have refrained from name calling or nasty sarcasm. i feel like I’ve just been through a college bio course.

Tom Melendy

Okay Sean, finally have a few. In response to your posts above about purebred dogs losing genetic diversity and bacteria – those statements you have reposted have elements of truth, but are written in a misleading fashion (whether purposeful or due to lack of understanding I have no way of knowing, so will not judge). It is true that purebred dogs have lost genetic diversity (variation) – but they have NOT lost genetic material. This is due to breeders continuing to backbreed to select for rare or desired traits. Note this also sometimes selects for genetic problems; as I’m sure you are aware many purebreeds have serious problems – just like humans have problems when backbred (why we have traditions and even laws against very close blood relatives marring and having children). But that loss in diversity is not due to a loss of genetic material (not due to a loss of genes). It is mutations, or slight changes in genes, that cause genetic diversity. This might alter their function, or might even turn the gene all the way off in some cases (Mexican hairless?). So yes, purebred dogs have lost genetic diversity, but all the genes required for them to be a wolf are still there! It would take probably hundreds of years of breeding to re-select for those wolf-characteristics, and some of the small mutations in genes that affect their function would have to re-arise, but it could and would happen. The genes ARE still there.

Bacterial selection for antibiotics: for bacteria the situation is a bit different. In addition to their bacterial chromosome, bacteria often also have extrachromosomal DNA that they can pick up from the environment or other bacteria, and that they can pass on to their progeny. Antibiotics generally act against basic physiological pathways that bacteria need to duplicate their DNA, make RNA, synthesize their bacterial proteins, or synthesize their cell walls, among others. As you can imagine stopping any of these processes will stop bacterial cell growth. Antibiotic resistance is not due to a loss of any bacterial genes. In some cases it may be due to some small mutation in a bacterial gene that leaves the protein encoded by that gene still functional, but changes the shape just enough that the antibiotic no longer binds effectively, so no longer works. More often bacteria pick up some DNA (whole genes) from the environment or other bacteria around (and these might be other types of bacteria that do not cause disease) that give the bacteria resistance to the antibiotic. Usually these antibiotic resistance genes act one of two ways: one is the gene may encode an enzyme that breaks down the antibiotic (common with penicillin-resistance); the second is that the gene may encode a molecular pump that pumps a variety of small molecules like antibiotics out of the bacteria. If the bacteria is continuously pumping the antibiotic out, the antibiotic is not effective. So in the case of bacterial antibiotic resistance, again there is no loss of genetic material, actually there is a gain of genetic material.

What these posts don’t recognize is that even when there is a mutation, this is NOT a loss of genetic information! It is a loss of diversity, and possibly function (or altered function). But the gene is still there – and it can be mutated back to full function just as easily as it mutated to lose function.

Also it is obvious why bacteria isolated from soil or from many years ago have these genes, penicillin was discovered in naturally occurring mold. This is in the environment, and some bacteria throughout natural history have had to deal with this as well as related molecules – so these enzymes and molecular pumps in some specific environments would be selected for over time. As we use antibiotics in healthcare (and sadly in animal feed), there is more selection for bacteria to pick up and hold onto these genes. That’s why they’re more prevalent in our environment than they were fifty years ago.

[….]

Oh, Sean, I forgot. As for how these antibiotics like beta-lactamase or antibiotic pumps arose though evolution. You can look at the amino acid sequence of these proteins and there are some very closely related proteins in some bacteria that are used for different purposes – they break down something other than beta-lactamase and pump other molecules into or out of bacteria. What has clearly happened is that these genes were duplicated and random mutations occurred. At some point in time, one or more of these mutations led to subtle changes in the protein which made it function in a new way – so that it could break down beta-lactamase (the ring in the penicillin structure). This then provided that bacterium with a selective advantage when it was in an environment with that family of mold. This idea of gene duplication is quite common – we humans also have gene duplications throughout our genomes. Most of these are not expressed and not currently “used” if you will – so don’t provide us any advantage now – but appear to be the place where new genes/functions can arise. There are cases where past pseudogenes have evolved to be used. There are several copies of human hemoglobin. In some other animals only a single hemoglobin is used, and the other copies remain as unused pseudogenes. In humans we still have some unexpressed hemoglobin pseudogenes, but we use more than one hemoglobin; at least one is only expressed and used in utero, and is developmentally turned down (to about 3%) as we are born and mature – then the standard hemoglobin is the primary hemoglobin. It is unclear what advantage the fetal hemoglobin provides in utero, but this is the way we have evolved. We guess there is some advantage to using it.

[….]

Okay. But even I would say that all by itself acquisition of antibiotic/pesticide resistance is not evidence for evolution. It’s just one very small brick in a very large wall. It’s consistent with evolution, but by itself it’s just one tiny piece of evidence. If it wasn’t for all the other evidence for evolution, then this by itself might be one little weird anomaly

[….]

“In his book Not by Chance, Spetner likens this situation to the disturbance of the key-lock relationship. Streptomycin, just like a key that perfectly fits in a lock, clutches on to the ribosome of a bacterium and inactivates it. Mutation, on the other hand, decomposes the ribosome, thus preventing streptomycin from holding on to the ribosome. Although this is interpreted as “bacteria developing immunity against streptomycin,” this is not a benefit for the bacteria but rather a loss for it. Spetner writes:

This change in the surface of the microorganism’s ribosome prevents the streptomycin molecule from attaching and carrying out its antibiotic function. It turns out that this degradation is a loss of specificity and therefore a loss of information. The main point is that Evolution… cannot be achieved by mutations of this sort, no matter how many of them there are. Evolution cannot be built by accumulating mutations that only degrade specificity.”

This is only partly correct Sean. These mutations that occur in the bacterial chromosomal genes that confer resistance to streptomycin (there are more than one that have been discovered) do indeed alter the structure of the ribosome (the enzyme complex that synthesizes proteins). But they do NOT “decompose the ribosome” as Spetner claims. If they did, the bacteria could not survive, as all bacteria (and larger life forms) require protein synthesis to survive! While these mutations alter the bacterial ribosome somewhat, so streptomycin does not bind, the mutant ribosomes still have enough structure to function. In the absence of streptomycin long-term bacteria with this mutation would be out-competed, as they’re not quite as efficient at protein synthesis – but they’d survive just fine in mixed populations without strong selective pressure. Also, as I said above, there is nothing to prevent these single point mutation from mutating back to the normal “wild-type” configuration in the absence of streptomycin. It doesn’t happen any more efficiently than the original mutation to streptomycin-resistance, but it doesn’t happen any less efficiently either. I’m actually shocked at Spetner’s statements you posted – it shows a clear lack of understanding of basic first year microbial biology! I’m kind of appalled.

ME

Having a few beers with the neighbors, Cost Plus World Market had a sale on some really good micro-brew. Spetner breaks the types of resistance into two categories (have you read his book out of curiosity? If you have not I would be curious to talk to you about when you do read it):

1) The transfer of resistance genes already extant in bacteria.

2) The building of resistance as a result of losing genetic data because of mutation.

So the transfer of antibiotic resistance in this manner (number 1) “… is not the kind that can serve as a prototype for the mutations needed to account for Evolution… The genetic changes that could illustrate the theory must not only add information to the bacterium’s genome, they must add new information to the biocosm. The horizontal transfer of genes only spreads around genes that are already in some species.”

Evolution is not happening here — at least the kind neo-Darwinism needs. No new genetic information is produced: genetic information that already exists is simply transferred between bacteria.

In a debate Dr. Spetner had he summed it up thus with Dr Edward Max (via Talk Origins and True Origins):

It turns out, however, that a microorganism can sometimes acquire resistance to an antibiotic through a random substitution of a single nucleotide, and this is the kind of example Max presented. Streptomycin, which was discovered by Selman Waksman and Albert Schatz and first reported in 1944, is an antibiotic against which bacteria can acquire resistance in this way. But although the mutation they undergo in the process is beneficial to the microorganism in the presence of streptomycin, it cannot serve as a prototype for the kind of mutations needed by NDT. The type of mutation that grants resistance to streptomycin is manifest in the ribosome and degrades its molecular match with the antibiotic molecule. This change in the surface of the microorganism’s ribosome prevents the streptomycin molecule from attaching and carrying out its antibiotic function. It turns out that this degradation is a loss of specificity and therefore a loss of information. The main point is that Evolution A cannot be achieved by mutations of this sort, no matter how many of them there are. Evolution cannot be built by accumulating mutations that only degrade specificity.

In the final paragraph of my original critique, I said the following:

The mutations needed for macroevolution have never been observed. No random mutations that could represent the mutations required by NDT that have been examined on the molecular level have added any information. The question I address is: Are the mutations that have been observed the kind the theory needs for support? The answer turns out to be NO! Many have lost information. To support NDT one would have to show many examples of random mutations that add information. Unless the aggregate results of the genetic experiments performed until now is a grossly biased sample, we can safely dismiss Neo-Darwinian theory as an explanation of how life developed from a single simple source. http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner2.asp

You are saying it is an example of a gain of new information? If all anti-biotics were removed from human application, would the parent population be again the dominant bacterium due to its superior health under less pressure?

Oh! Bacterium transferring resistance laterally also fits with the predictive powers of I.D. (You had said: “It’s consistent with evolution”)

Tom Melendy

Sean, the point I made above, about how some of the things Spetner states are just plain wrong, makes me question his deductive powers. There are similar things in the sections you’ve posted above. He’ll take one correct point, and then follow it up with a second statement about it or a conclusion about it which is patently wrong! Because he starts with a correct statement, you start giving him credence (and it sounds like he knows what he’s talking about. But then he screws it up completely. I can’t even bear to read the little pieces you’ve posted he because he’s made such a mashup of some correct facts, some incorrect statements, and completely fallacious reasoning – I sorry, I just can’t bear to read his work. His reasoning is just garbage – as I’ve pointed out in the example I gave above.

Point mutations, like the one he describes about Streptomycin, do not “degrade specificity”. They ALTER specificity – and might even bind other things BETTER than the original. Because he uses the words “degrade” and “loss of genetic information” (I pointed out above how that conclusion of his is wrong too), it SOUNDS like his conclusion makes sense – that this “loss of specificity” and “loss of genetic information” could not be a positive for evolution. The problem is his characterization of those mutations as being a “loss” of information is simply incorrect. This is what I was talking about above, where he makes a point that is correct – a mutation can caused decreased binding to streptomycin – but his descriptions after that are incorrect and misleading. Virtually everything you’ve posted by him is like this – he starts with one correct statement, then makes misleading or mischaracterizing statements about it, allowing him to build a fallacious argument. One of two things – either he doesn’t know what he’s talking about, or he’s trying to mislead you – I don’t know which.

ME

To be clear, less fitness is better?

….some mutant bacteria, because they have defective membranes, don’t absorb nutrients well. Fortuitously for them, that inefficiency also prevents their absorbing antibiotics. And so, in this instance also, they survive better than their normal cousins. But the mutation did not make them stronger or create new information, or “evolve” to a higher state.

So you teach your students that a harmful mutation in the oxygen-carrying capacity of the blood (sickle-cell anemia) is “good” — or — or an upward mobility in fitness on the whole and a proof of evolution? Its like air leaking slowly from a tire… it may do well temporarily in sand, but it isn’t an improvement.

Again:

Rearranging the same information is a prediction of I.D. AND creation… small changes in “species” is expected in all of the evolutionary models and creation models.

It seemed like from an above statement you couldn’t bear to read Spetner. I would feel fulfilled if I got a promise from you to read ONE book, one book: “Unshakeable Foundation,” by Norman Geisler and Peter Bocchino. I will even buy it for you if you do not feel the need to spend money on it. Let me know.

You said:

Any scientist with an agenda is not a scientists but a poor philosopher with dangerous intent…. God is beyond being “proven” or “disproven”, which is of course inherent for a being all-powerful. It is beyond any man to prove or disprove God.

This is the same as saying, “God is indescribable,” which of course is a self-refuting [self-deleting] statement… e.g., incoherent. You mean, according to philosophical naturalism God is unprovable:

  • Professor: “Miracles are impossible Sean, don’t you know science has disproven them, how could you believe in them [i.e., answered prayer, a man being raised from the dead, etc.].”
  • Student: “for clarity purposes I wish to get some definitions straight. Would it be fair to say that science is generally defined as ‘the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us’?”
  • Professor: “Beautifully put, that is the basic definition of science in every text-book I read through my Doctoral journey.”
  • Student: “Wouldn’t you also say that a good definition of a miracle would be ‘and event in nature caused by something outside of nature’?”
  • Professor: “Yes, that would be an acceptable definition of ‘miracle.’”
  • Student: “But since you do not believe that anything outside of nature exists [materialism, dialectical materialism, empiricism, existentialism, naturalism, and humanism – whatever you wish to call it], you are ‘forced’ to conclude that miracles are impossible”

Unless, @Tom Melendy, God came into the world… a Christian is one who believes Jesus *IS* God incarnate. Do you believe this Tom?

Tom Melendy

It’s interesting Sean, I actually agree very much with that point made above “Any scientist with an agenda is not a scientists but a poor philosopher with dangerous intent…. God is beyond being “proven” or “disproven”, which is of course inherent for a being all-powerful. It is beyond any man to prove or disprove God.” – this is actually something I teach my students VERY hard – to not become wedded to a theory, to be willing to let that theory go WILLINGLY, if the data argues against it. I have no agenda here – I neither want to prove nor disprove God (such attempts are silly, if we accept God is all powerful, it is beyond the power of Man to prove or disprove). I only want to look at the data and see what they indicate. I would argue VERY STRONGLY that the scientists you have been posting have an AGENDA – and that agenda is to disprove evolution. Ergo, as per your post above – they are very poor scientists. And based on their writings that you’ve posted, I agree wholeheartedly – their writings are rife with errors and mis-conclusions. Conversely I do not believe that believing in Evolution precludes an all-powerful God. Much of the Bible is written as parable or allegory, and I believe that Genesis is written in much this way – written in a way so mankind at that time could comprehend what was written. So unlike most, I go into the Evolution question with an open mind, without any goal or either proving or disproving God. So if you put that question aside, and ask what the data supports, the data overwhelmingly supports Evolution – otherwise why would there be so many fossils of species showing intermediate forms between ancient life forms and current life forms, otherwise why would gene homologies across both current species as well as compared to ancient species show incremental changes consistent with Evolution. Instead of you probing my knowledge and ability to support Evolution with the biological systems in the world – let me ask you a question. If God created all the species currently on the Earth either 6000 years ago, or through intelligent design, why is there so much evidence that supports Evolution? Why Ancient species, why evidence for intermediate species? If you believe in an all-powerful God, yet don’t believe in Evolution, then why are these fossils there, then why does the genetic code show evidence of intermediates and sequence-relatedness consistent with Evolution? Do you believe God put it all there just to try to confuse us? Seems like a lot of trouble just to play a little mind-game with mankind – ??

…Continued in Part II

Dr. Stephen Meyer Explains the Religious Position in Materialism

Published by Papa Giorgio

From video description:

IN a great presentation from True U. (http://www.trueu.org/), Dr. Stephen Meyer shows how — by using the supposition from Hinduism that the earth sits atop a turtle used by Stephen Hawkings — the materialist position differs little from any religious suppositions. (Posted by: Religio-Political Talk)

Concepts: “Free Will or Not” – That is the Question

Published by Papa Giorgio

This is a topic I know a bit about, as, it is a common feature required to make distinctions in philosophy and science (and the philosophy of science) regarding naturalism and its influence on epistemology and if we can know truth, moral truth or otherwise. As we read the article we come to a small paragraph that shows me John is traipsing into territory he knows nothing about but makes sweeping statements as if he does. We read:

  • Acceptance of an assumption that there is no free will would remove everyone’s responsibility for his or her behavior, and nobody could be condemned to jail or death. Such a thesis also would deny the influence of DNA and of experience in life.

Firstly, popular culture weighs in on this idea that somehow DNA influences free-will?

  1. “Infidelity – It May Be In Our Genes” ~ Time, August 15, 1994;
  2. “20th Century Blues” – Stress, anxiety, depression: the new science of evolutionary psychology finds the roots of modern maladies in our genes ~ Time, August 28, 1995;
  3. “Born Happy (Or Not)” – Happiness is more than just a state of mind… It is in the genes too;
  4. “Born To Be Gay?” ~ New Zealand Herald, August 8, 1996;
  5. “What Makes Them Do It?” – People who crave thrills, new evidence indicates, may be prompted at least partly by their genes ~ New Scientist, September 28, 1996, p. 32;
  6. “Your Genes May Be Forcing You To Eat Too Much” ~ Time, January 15, 1996;
  7. “Infanticide/neonaticide is caused by an evolutionary imperative” ~ New York Times, November 2, 1997.

In a lecture from Stephen Hawkings (who holds the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics, Einstein’s chair) at a lecture given to a university crowd in England entitled “Determinism – Is Man a Slave or the Master of His Fate.” He discussed whether we are the random products of chance, and hence, not free, or whether God had designed these laws within which we are free. In other words: do we have the ability to make choices, or do we simply follow a chemical reaction induced by millions of mutational collisions of free atoms?

Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s maxim rings just as true today as it did in his day,“If there is no God, all things are permissible.” Without an absolute ethical norm, morality is reduced to mere preference and the world is a jungle where might makes right. This same strain of thought caused Mussolini to comment,

“Everything I have said and done in these last years is relativism by intuition…. If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories and men who claim to be bearers of an objective, immortal truth… then there is nothing more relativistic than fascistic attitudes and activity…. From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he is capable.”

Which brings me to the finishing statement from John, “I cannot see how any society could function without assuming we do have free will.” On this we agree, even an atheistic society must borrow from the theistic worldview. In a previous response to My Huizum, I noted Sam Harris’ thinking on ultimate ethics:

  • evolutionary psychology (for instance, atheist defender Sam Harris makes the Darwinian psychological statement that “…there’s nothing more natural than rape. Human beings rape, chimpanzees rape, orangutans rape, rape clearly is part of an evolutionary strategy to get your genes into the next generation if you’re a male.”)

So, let us see some popular positions taken by “evangelical” atheists:

Richard Dawkins

(h/t: TrueFreeThinker) – A Statement Made by an atheist at the Atheist and Agnostic Society:

“Some atheists do believe in ethical absolutes, some don’t. My answer is a bit more complicated — I don’t believe that there are any axiological claims which are absolutely true, except within the context of one person’s opinion.

That is, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and so are ethics. So, why is Hitler wrong? Because he murdered millions, and his only justification, even if it were valid, was based on things which he should have known were factually wrong. Why is it wrong to do that? Because I said so. Unless you actually disagree with me — unless you want to say that Hitler was right — I’m not sure I have more to say.”

[side note] You may also be aware that Richard Dawkins stated,

  • “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question.”*

* Stated during an interview with Larry Taunton, “Richard Dawkins: The Atheist Evangelist,” by Faith Magazine, Issue Number 18, December 2007 (copyright; 2007-2008)

Lewis Wolpert

Dan Barker

Take note also that leaders in atheistic thinking and philosophers of good standing deal with the determinism found in neo-Darwinian/naturalistic philosophies and evolutionary thinking. For instance, from a debate I was in many years ago, Stan said the following:

  • “The brain works by firing electric charges that then release chemicals that make others fire electric charges.”
Robots and Cosmic Puppetry: The Scientific Challenge to Freedom

Since at least the time of Sir Isaac Newton, scientists and philosophers impressed by the march of science have offered a picture of human behavior that is not promising for a belief in freedom. All nature is viewed by them as one huge mechanism, with human beings serving as just parts of that giant machine. On this view, we live and think in accordance with the same laws and causes that move all other physical components of the universal mechanism.

According to these thinkers, everything that happens in nature has a cause. Suppose then that an event occurs, which, in context, is clearly a human action of the sort that we would normally call free. As an occurrence in this universe, it has a cause. But then that cause, in turn, has a cause. And that cause in turn has a cause, and so on, and so on [remember, reductionism].

“Everything is determined, the beginning as well as the end, by forces over which we have no control. It is determined for the insect as well as for the star. Human beings, vegetables, or cosmic dust, we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an invisible player” — Albert Einstein.

As a result of this scientific world view, we get the following picture:

Natural conditions outside our control…
cause…
Inner bodily and brain states,
which cause…
mental and physical actions

But if this is true, then you are, ultimately, just a conduit or pipeline for chains of natural causation that reach far back into the past before your birth and continue far forward into the future after your death. You are not an originating cause of anything [this includes brain activity of all degrees, that is, love, pain, etc.). Nothing you ever do is due to your choices or thoughts alone. You are a puppet of nature. You are no more than a robot programmed by an unfeeling cosmos.

Psychologists talk about heredity and environment as responsible for everything you do. But then if they are, you aren’t. Does it follow that you can then do as you please, irresponsibly? Not at all. It only follows that you will do as nature and nurture please. But then, nature on this picture turns out to be just an illusory veil over a heartless, uncaring nature. You have what nature gives you. Nothing more, nothing less.

Where is human freedom in this picture? It doesn’t exist. It is one of our chief illusions. The natural belief in free will is just a monstrous falsehood. But we should not feel bad about holding on to this illusion until science corrects us. We can’t have helped it.

This reasoning is called The Challenge of Scientific Determinism. According to determinists, we are determined in every respect to do everything that we ever do.

This again is a serious challenge to human freedom. It is the reason that the early scientist Pierre Laplace (1749-1827) once said that if you could give a super-genius a total description of the universe at any given point in time, that being would be able to predict with certainty everything that would ever happen in the future relative to that moment, and retrodict with certainty anything that had ever happened in any moment before that described state. Nature, he believed, was that perfect machine. And we human beings were just cogs in the machine, deluded in our beliefs that we are free.

 (Tom Morris, Philosophy for Dummies, 133-134)

[….]

Evil, say, infanticide is reduced to determinism.  (Brain function [choice, action] reduces to chemical reactions, which are caused by a physical process, which in turn are caused by a physical [reduced] cause… etc ad infinitum.)  And when a person says, “I reject the thought of an ultimate being. So how do I determine ‘right’ from ‘wrong’? I don’t. I simply base things on choices. It is my belief that that the only moral system is a system that let’s everyone make their own choices, and live their life as they wish” [Giddion is another person involved in this old debate] they do not realize what they are thus accepting as the rule of life, as I will now refute.  And one would have to admit if he or she rejects God, physicalism is all that is left.

Mind/Body Physicalism Refuted (the following is from Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity, by J. P. Moreland, pp. 90-92)

A number of philosophers have argued that physicalism must be false because it implies determinism and determinism is self-refuting.  Speaking of the determinist, J. R. Lucas says:

If what he says is true, he says it merely as the result of his heredity and environment, and nothing else.  He does not hold his determinist views because they are true, but because he has such-and-such stimuli; that is, not because the structure of the structure of the universe is such-and-such but only because the configuration of only part of the universe, together with the structure of the determinist’s brain, is such as to produce that result….  Determinism, therefore, cannot be true, because if it was, we should not take the determinists’ arguments as being really arguments [say, whether or not homosexuality is a right or not] as being really arguments, but as being only conditioned reflexes.  Their statements should not be regarded as really claiming to be true, but only as seeking to cause us to respond in some way desired by them.  (Freedom of the Will, by John Lucas)

H. P. Owen states that:

Determinism is self-stultifying.  If my mental processes are totally determined, I am totally determined either to accept or to reject determinism.  But if the sole reason for my believing or not believing X is that I am causally determined to believe it I have no ground for holding that my judgment is true or false.  (Christian Theism, p. 118)

… if one claims to know that physicalism is true, or to embrace it for good reasons, if one claims that it is a rational position which should be chosen on the basis of evidence [as one does when they reject theism], then this claim is self-refuting.  This is so because physicallism seems to deny the possibility of rationality.  To see this, let us examine the necessary preconditions which must hold if there is to be such a thing as rationality and show how physicalism denies these preconditions.

At least five factors must obtain if there are to be genuine rational agents who can accurately reflect on the world.  First, minds must have internationality; they must be capable of having thoughts about or of the world.  Acts of inference are “insights into” or “knowings of” something other than themselves.

Second, reasons, propositions, thoughts, laws of logic and evidence, and truth must exist and be capable of being instanced in people’s minds and influencing their thought processes.  This fact is hard to reconcile with physicallism.  To see this, consider the field of ethics.  Morality prescribes what we ought to do (prescriptive); it does not merely describe what is in fact done (descriptive).  Objective morality makes sense if real moral laws or oughts exist and if normative, moral properties like rightness, goodness, worth, and dignity exist in acts (the act of honoring one’s parents) and things (persons and animals have worth) [this all applies to the debate over homosexuality].  If physicalism is true as a worldview, there are no moral properties or full-blooded oughts.  Physical states just are, and one physical state causes or fails to cause another physical state.  A physical state does not morally prescribe that another physical ought to be.  If physicalism is true, oughts are not real moral obligations telling us what one should do to be in conformity with the moral universe.  Rather, “ought” serves as a mere guide for reaching a socially acceptable or psychologically desired goal (e.g., “if one wants to have pleasure and avoid pain, then one ‘ought’ to tell the truth”).  Moral imperatives become grounded in subjective preferences on the same level as a preference for Burger King over McDonald’s….

[….]

Reductionism – The theory that every complex phenomenon, esp. in biology or psychology, can be explained by analyzing the simplest, most basic physical mechanisms that are in operation during the phenomenon. (Random-House Webster)

C.S. Lewis pointed out that even our ability to reason and think rationally would be called into question if atheistic evolution were true:

“If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our thought processes are mere accidents – the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts — i.e. of Materialism and — are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give a correct account of all the other accidents.”

Which brings C.S. Lewis to mention how he was not able to connect the idea of “evil” to the world as an atheist:

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too–for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist–in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless -I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality–namely my idea of justice–was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be a word without meaning.

C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (San Francisco, CA: Harper San Francisco, 1952), 38-39.

William Lane Craig, who debated Sam Harris, works through this in his post, “Navigating Sam Harris’ The Moral Landscape.” One can see from Sam Harris that ethics is not something that “ought” to be adhered to. In an article and from a debate between theist William Lane Craig and Same Harris, we can zero in on what naturalism says

First, objective moral values:

So how does Sam Harris propose to solve the “value problem”? The trick he proposes is simply to redefine what he means by “good” and “evil” in non-moral terms. He says we should “define ‘good’ as that which supports [the] well-being” of conscious creatures.” He states, “Good and evil need only consist in this: misery versus well-being.” Or again: “In speaking of ‘moral truth,’ I am saying that there must be facts regarding human and animal well-being.”

So, he says, “Questions about values … are really questions about the well-being of conscious creatures.” Therefore, he concludes, “It makes no sense … to ask whether maximizing well-being is ‘good’.” Why not? Because he’s redefined the word “good” to mean the well-being of conscious creatures. So to ask, “Why is maximizing creatures’ well-being good?” is on his definition the same as asking, “Why does maximizing creatures’ well-being maximize creatures’ well-being?” It is simply a tautology — talking in a circle. Thus, Harris has “solved” his problem simply by redefining his terms. It is mere word play.

Second, objective moral duties:

Does atheism provide a sound foundation for objective moral duties? Duty has to do with moral obligation and prohibition, what I ought or ought not to do. Here reviewers of The Moral Landscape have been merciless in pounding Harris’ attempt to provide a naturalistic account of moral obligation. Two problems stand out.

Natural science tells us only what is, not what ought to be, the case. As philosopher Jerry Fodor has written, “Science is about facts, not norms; it might tell us how we are, but it wouldn’t tell us what is wrong with how we are.” In particular it cannot tell us that we have a moral obligation to take actions that are conducive to human flourishing.

[….]

Second, ”ought” implies “can.” A person is not morally responsible for an action he is unable to avoid. For example, if somebody shoves you into another person, you are not to blame for bumping into this person. You had no choice. But Harris believes that all of our actions are causally determined and that there is no free will. Harris rejects not only libertarian accounts of freedom but also compatibilistic accounts of freedom. But if there is no free will, no one is morally responsible for anything. In the end, Harris admits this, though it’s tucked away in his endnotes. Moral responsibility, he says, “is a social construct,” not an objective reality: “in neuroscientific terms no person is more or less responsible than any other” for the actions they perform. His thoroughgoing determinism spells the end of any hope or possibility of objective moral duties on his worldview because we have no control over what we do.

William Lane Craig Discusses Sam Harris’ book, “The Moral Landscape”

So we can see that even the person mentioned in John Van Huizum’s article, Sam Harris, in reality rejects his premise that free will exists. John does say though, that we must (we meaning any society, secular or not) must assume it to be true. Thus, John is borrowing from the Judeo-Christian worldview and really arguing for the coherence of it (and the incoherence of the opposite), and not of atheism… unbeknownst to him! John neglects to tell us “the rest of the story” (Paul Harvey), or more likely doesn’t know the story to begin with.

  • Simple enough… as above. REMEMBER, Dr. Provine is an evolutionist… a neo-Darwinian proponent following his worldview to its logical ends/consequences.

The Magician’s Twin: C.S. Lewis and the Case against Scientism ~ Documentary

Published by Papa Giorgio

More than a half century ago, famed writer C.S. Lewis warned about how science (a good thing) could be twisted in order to attack religion, undermine ethics, and limit human freedom. In this documentary “The Magician’s Twin: C.S. Lewis and the Case Against Scientism,” leading scholars explore Lewis’s prophetic warnings about the abuse of science and how Lewis’s concerns are increasingly relevant for us today.

We Evolved Into Needing Progressive Democratic Ethics/Government

Published by Papa Giorgio

Really the idea of “progressive, democratic evolutionary ethics” is meaningless if true (see here). Dennis Prager discusses a recent defense of Bloomberg’s “soda-ban” by an evolutionary professor from Harvard. He [Dennis] even wrote about this in a recent article:

————————————–

Control of Language (1984'ish)
To differ with the left is not only definitionally sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist, and bigoted (SIXHIRB, as I have labeled it) — it is now against science itself….
Science Demands Big Government

The quotation of the week last week had to be that of Harvard professor Daniel E. Lieberman in an opinion piece for the New York Times.

Lieberman, a professor of human evolutionary biology, was among those who publicly defended New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s plan to ban the sale of sugared soft drinks in cups larger than 16 ounces.

And he did so using, of all things, evolution.

Now, we all know that humans have always needed — or evolved to need — carbohydrates for energy. So how could evolution argue for Mayor Bloomberg’s ban on sugar, a pure carbohydrate?

“We have evolved,” the professor concluded his piece, “to need coercion.”

[….]

Evolution explains love, altruism, morality, economic behavior, God, religion, intelligence. Indeed, it explains everything but music. For some reason, the evolutionists have not come up with an evolution-based explanation for why human beings react so powerfully to music. But surely they will.

Now, along comes Professor Lieberman, not merely to use evolution to explain human behavior but to justify coercive left-wing social policy.

In other words, the left is not only progressive when it coerces citizens to act in ways the left deems appropriate but also science itself — through evolution — inexorably leads to government coercion on behalf of such policies.

Whereas until now, the democratic left has attempted to persuade humanity that left-wing policies are inherently progressive, this Harvard professor has gone a huge step further. Left-wing policies are scientifically based. This is exactly how the Soviet Communists defended their totalitarian system. Everything they advocated was “naoochni,” “scientific.”

To differ with the left is not only definitionally sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist, and bigoted (SIXHIRB, as I have labeled it) — it is now against science itself….

…read more…

Here are the original comments by Prager on this deterministic proclamation:

How Darwinian evolution refutes naturalism and atheism (Serious Saturday)

Published by Papa Giorgio

This is very connected to this Serious Saturday, and it is by an apologist I enjoy, Dr. Ken Samples, so, enjoy:

From video description:

How Darwinian evolution refutes naturalism and atheism. Titled: “Darwin’s Doubt: Can Naturalistically Evolved Human Minds Be Trusted to Yield True Beliefs About Reality?” Presented to CNS on November 15, 2010 by: Dr. Ken Samples, Reasons to Believe

A reflective person by nature, Charles Darwin initially had doubts about his proposed theory of evolution. Darwin worried about the philosophical implications of his biological theory. One of the areas in particular that bothered Darwin was whether an evolved human mind could be trusted to produce reliable truth about reality. This lecture by professor Kenneth Samples proposes that atheistic, evolutionary naturalism faces three potential defeaters in its attempt to explain humankind’s rational faculties in general and truth about reality in particular.

This is a PowerPoint video of the lecture. The PowerPoint slides begin to change 3 minutes into the lecture.

If Philosophical Naturalism (atheistic Darwinian theory) is Truly True, Is It In-Fact True? (Serious Saturday)

Published by Papa Giorgio

Quote:

Even Darwin had some misgivings about the reliability of human beliefs. He wrote, “With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?”

Given unguided evolution, “Darwin’s Doubt” is a reasonable one. Even given unguided or blind evolution, it’s difficult to say how probable it is that creatures—even creatures like us—would ever develop true beliefs. In other words, given the blindness of evolution, and that its ultimate “goal” is merely the survival of the organism (or simply the propagation of its genetic code), a good case can be made that atheists find themselves in a situation very similar to Hume’s.

The Nobel Laureate and physicist Eugene Wigner echoed this sentiment: “Certainly it is hard to believe that our reasoning power was brought, by Darwin’s process of natural selection, to the perfection which it seems to possess.” That is, atheists have a reason to doubt whether evolution would result in cognitive faculties that produce mostly true beliefs. And if so, then they have reason to withhold judgment on the reliability of their cognitive faculties. Like before, as in the case of Humean agnostics, this ignorance would, if atheists are consistent, spread to all of their other beliefs, including atheism and evolution. That is, because there’s no telling whether unguided evolution would fashion our cognitive faculties to produce mostly true beliefs, atheists who believe the standard evolutionary story must reserve judgment about whether any of their beliefs produced by these faculties are true. This includes the belief in the evolutionary story. Believing in unguided evolution comes built in with its very own reason not to believe it.

This will be an unwelcome surprise for atheists. To make things worse, this news comes after the heady intellectual satisfaction that Dawkins claims evolution provided for thoughtful unbelievers. The very story that promised to save atheists from Hume’s agnostic predicament has the same depressing ending.

It’s obviously difficult for us to imagine what the world would be like in such a case where we have the beliefs that we do and yet very few of them are true. This is, in part, because we strongly believe that our beliefs are true (presumably not all of them are, since to err is human—if we knew which of our beliefs were false, they would no longer be our beliefs).

Suppose you’re not convinced that we could survive without reliable belief-forming capabilities, without mostly true beliefs. Then, according to Plantinga, you have all the fixins for a nice argument in favor of God’s existence For perhaps you also think that—given evolution plus atheism—the probability is pretty low that we’d have faculties that produced mostly true beliefs. In other words, your view isn’t “who knows?” On the contrary, you think it’s unlikely that blind evolution has the skill set for manufacturing reliable cognitive mechanisms. And perhaps, like most of us, you think that we actually have reliable cognitive faculties and so actually have mostly true beliefs. If so, then you would be reasonable to conclude that atheism is pretty unlikely. Your argument, then, would go something like this: if atheism is true, then it’s unlikely that most of our beliefs are true; but most of our beliefs are true, therefore atheism is probably false.

Notice something else. The atheist naturally thinks that our belief in God is false. That’s just what atheists do. Nevertheless, most human beings have believed in a god of some sort, or at least in a supernatural realm. But suppose, for argument’s sake, that this widespread belief really is false, and that it merely provides survival benefits for humans, a coping mechanism of sorts. If so, then we would have additional evidence—on the atheist’s own terms—that evolution is more interested in useful beliefs than in true ones. Or, alternatively, if evolution really is concerned with true beliefs, then maybe the widespread belief in God would be a kind of “evolutionary” evidence for his existence.

You’ve got to wonder.

Mitch Stokes, A Shot of Faith: To the Head (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2012), 44-45.

Another quote:

….Darwin thought that, had the circumstances for reproductive fitness been different, then the deliverances of conscience might have been radically different. “If . . . men were reared under precisely the same conditions as hive-bees, there can hardly be a doubt that our unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters, and no one would think of interfering” (Darwin, Descent, 82). As it happens, we weren’t “reared” after the manner of hive bees, and so we have widespread and strong beliefs about the sanctity of human life and its implications for how we should treat our siblings and our offspring.

But this strongly suggests that we would have had whatever beliefs were ultimately fitness producing given the circumstances of survival. Given the background belief of naturalism, there appears to be no plausible Darwinian reason for thinking that the fitness-producing predispositions that set the parameters for moral reflection have anything whatsoever to do with the truth of the resulting moral beliefs. One might be able to make a case for thinking that having true beliefs about, say, the predatory behaviors of tigers would, when combined with the understandable desire not to be eaten, be fitness producing. But the account would be far from straightforward in the case of moral beliefs.” And so the Darwinian explanation undercuts whatever reason the naturalist might have had for thinking that any of our moral beliefs is true. The result is moral skepticism.

If our pretheoretical moral convictions are largely the product of natural selection, as Darwin’s theory implies, then the moral theories we find plausible are an indirect result of that same evolutionary process. How, after all, do we come to settle upon a proposed moral theory and its principles as being true? What methodology is available to us?

Paul Copan and William Lane Craig [quote from chapter written by, Mark D. Linville], eds., Contending With Christianity’s Critics: Answering the New Atheists & Other Objections (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing, 2009), 70.

From an old post… continuing some of the ideas above:

C.S. Lewis pointed out that even our ability to reason and think rationally would be called into question if atheistic evolution were true:

“If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our thought processes are mere accidents – the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts — i.e. of Materialism and — are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give a correct account of all the other accidents.”

Phillip Johnson, law professor at Berkley for thirty years, explains this dilemma as well:

“Are our thoughts ‘nothing but’ the products of chemical reactions in the brain, and did our thinking abilities originate for no reason other than their utility in allowing our DNA to reproduce itself? Even scientific materialists have a hard time believing that. For one thing, materialism applied to the mind undermines the validity of all reasoning, including one’s own. If our theories are products of chemical reactions [rather than from our soul or spirit, as evolutionists would say], how can we know whether our theories are true? Perhaps [evolutionist] Richard Dawkins believes in Darwinism only because he has a certain chemical in his brain, and if his belief be changed by somehow inserting a different chemical.”

To get this into layman’s terms, I will let the philosopher J. P. Moreland, from his debate with renowned atheist Kai Nielson, explain it:

“Suppose you were driving on a train and you saw a sign on the hillside that said, ‘Wales in ten miles.’  Suppose you knew that the wind had blown that sign together.  If the sign had been put together by a purely non-intelligent random process… there would be no reason to trust the information conveyed by the sign.”

C. S. Lewis finishes his thought from above:

“It’s like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.”

Nobel Prize Winner’s Treatment Prime Example of “Scientism”

Published by Papa Giorgio

On this episode of ID the Future, host David Boze examines the plight of Dr. Daniel Shechtman, recent winner of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his discovery of quasicrystals, who had previously suffered much rejection and ridicule for threatening the consensus of the scientific establishment. Listen in and consider the parallels between Shechtman’s once-heretical science and the modern-day rejection and scorn of the ID movement. http://www.idthefuture.com/

Whats Okay with Big Gov and Not Okay With It (Nanny State Comparisons)

Published by Papa Giorgio

Libertarian Republican notes the latest nanny state move by the banning of cartoon characters for sugary cereals.

The Federal Government, pushed along by liberal pressure groups, is taking the first steps towards banning the sale of sugary cereals and salt-abundant foods to kids.

CBS News reports: “GOP decries “nanny state” push on junk food ads”:

To critics, it’s the latest example of “nanny state” overreach by the federal government that could cost money and jobs.

The issue? A proposed set of voluntary guidelines backed by the Obama administration designed to limit the marketing of junk food to children through mascots like “Tony the Tiger,” the smiling animated figure used for decades to sell Kellogg’s “Frosted Flakes” breakfast cereal. Under the guidelines, companies would only be able to advertize and promote healthy foods low in fat, sugar…

…(read more)…

Professor Walter Williams described these “Do Gooders” as lifestyle Nazis. CS Lewis aptly talked about his fear of such people:

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. Their very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be ‘cured’ against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.

C. S. Lewis, God in the Dock, p. 292.

The government will demand the following to be placed on cigarette packs (forcing private business to place gruesome photos on their product:

That, however, is not my main focus. What I do wish to zero in on is what causes the secular left does go to the mat/floor for. That is, the above at the Federal level is kosher… the below at the local level is not! That is, to ban simple labels inserted into biology textbooks simply warning the school children about the monolithic view taught in their science classes [in regards to origin science, not working science] in a small label inserted into their biology textbooks:

  1. This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered. (Selman v. Cobb County School District)
  2. Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book Of Pandas and People is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view in an effort to gain an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves. As is true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. (Tammy Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District)

How is this argument misconstrued with straw-men and non-sequiturs? Here is a great example that comes from an evolutionary website, first the person posts this graphic equating ID to the following:

Did you notice the lumping in of Neo-Darwinian THEORY with laws of science and effects that are repeatable, observable? The author contunues down the non-sequitur road creating a straw-man and then defeating it, not the real argument:

How long does this fight need to go on? Do we need to teach the “strengths and weaknesses” of the theory of gravity? That’s right. That’s all it is. A theory. But I don’t see any creationists defiantly jumping off cliffs.

One commentator also hops in and says something that is truly amazing and shows you the depths of non-thinking in regards to this topic:

The world is flat, the moon landing was a hoax, global warming is not real, and intelligent design is true. Amazing what some people will resort to, just to avoid facing the truth and questioning their beliefs or their lifestyles.

All I have to say is “WOW!” Which brings me to the god centered vacuum that man tries to fill with himself. And this is the bottom line, do you want to give ultimate credence to The Designer, or the creature:

Romans 1:21-23 (ESV):

For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

 I would hope, to rightly understand what Intelligent Design theorists ARE saying, one would take the time to read the small portion entitled “The Golden Arm,” posted after an atheists point about ID:

If science really is permanently committed to methodological naturalism – the philosophical position that restricts all explanations in science to naturalistic explanations – it follows that the aim of science is not generating true theories. Instead, the aim of science would be something like: generating the best theories that can be formulated subject to the restriction that the theories are naturalistic. More and more evidence could come in suggesting that a supernatural being exists, but scientific theories wouldn’t be allowed to acknowledge that possibility.

Bradley Monton, author of Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design ~ Apologetics315 h/t

Enjoy the following read, click to enlarge:

Photobucket
Photobucket
Photobucket
Photobucket
Photobucket
Photobucket
Photobucket
Photobucket
Photobucket
Photobucket
Photobucket
Photobucket
Photobucket
Photobucket