(Paul Copan)
The former Chrysler CEO Lee Iacocca once said: “The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing.” This simple advice has wide-ranging application—whether we’re settling personal disagreements, planning our schedules, or trying to build bridges with non-Christians.
One area of bridge-building has to do with the creation-evolution “debate.” In my book “That’s Just Your Interpretation” (Baker, 2001), I deal with a variety of philosophical and apologetical questions such as the Trinity, the Incarnation, Eastern monism and reincarnation, foreknowledge and free will, predestination, and the like. One question I address has to do with the Genesis-science issue. I note that the fundamental question is not how old the earth is (although I do believe it is billions of years old); nor is the issue how long God took to create the universe (if we insist that God’s creating in six 24-hour days as more miraculous than a process of billions of years, this still wouldn’t be as miraculous as God’s creating in six nanoseconds…or just one!). I also mention in the book that the fundamental issue to discuss with scientifically-minded non-Christians—the main thing—is not “creation vs. evolution”; rather, it is the question of “God vs. no God.” There are, after all, evangelical theistic evolutionists such as theologian Henri Blocher and the late Christian statesman John Stott, and the theologian J.I. Packer seems quite open to theistic evolution (consider his endorsement of theistic evolutionist Denis Alexander’s book Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose?).
Now I have my questions about evolution, but then again, a number of naturalists do too! For example, the biochemist Franklin Harold writes: “We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity….but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”[1] Hmmm…interesting. At any rate, if evolution turns out to be true, then the Christian should embrace it as one dedicated to following the truth wherever it leads. This might mean reworking his interpretation of Genesis on the subject—much like Christians have had to rework their interpretation of biblical passages referring to the sun rising and setting, the earth not moving, or the earth resting on foundations.[2]
As I speak to secular audiences on university campuses and elsewhere, I don’t raise the creation vs. evolution issue. Rather, for the sake of argument, I grant evolution and begin the discussion there. I don’t want people turned off to the gospel because I’ve lost sight of the main thing—the centrality of Jesus; unfortunately, a lot of well-meaning Christians do just that and end up running down this or that rabbit trail and never getting back to the main thing. Evolution is a secondary concern; we Christians should remember this when engaging with unbelievers rather than getting side-tracked. Keep the main thing the main thing.
I typically highlight the following two points when speaking with naturalists.
1. If humans evolved from a single-celled organism over hundreds of millions of years, this is a remarkable argument from design! Indeed, a lot of naturalists themselves utilize design language when referring to biological organisms—“machines,” “computer-like,” “appears designed” (a point I’ll address in a future blog posting). As believers, we shouldn’t be surprised to see God’s sustaining and providential hand operating through natural processes—though unfortunately even some believing scientists are reluctant to acknowledge this. Alvin Plantinga’s recent book on God and science, Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism (Oxford), points out that the conflict is between naturalism and science, not God and science, even if this involves guided (not unguided) evolution.
Now, the atheist Richard Dawkins has claimed that Darwin made it possible to be a fulfilled atheist. Well, that’s not quite right. For one thing, Darwin himself didn’t see God and evolution in conflict with each other. Darwin wrote in The Origin of Species (1859), “To my mind, it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes . . . .” And again: “There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one . . . from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.”[3] But there’s more for the atheist to consider.
2. Several significant steps or hurdles must be overcome before evolution can get going: Many naturalists claim that “evolution can explain it all.” For example, Daniel Dennett asserts that Darwinistic evolution is a “universal acid” that eats through everything it comes into contact with. The problem, however, is that a number of massive hurdles must be overcome before self-replicating life can even get a running start. Here are the key hurdles:
- The origin of the universe from nothing: evolution’s no good without a universe in which it can unfold, and the universe began a finite time ago; it hasn’t always been around.
- The delicately-balanced, knife-edge universe requires many very specific conditions for life;
- The emergence of first life (and eventually consciousness): how life could emerge from non-life (or consciousness from non-conscious matter) continues to stump scientists; moreover, if humans could somehow produce life from non-life, this would simply show that this takes a lot of intelligent planning! Just because we have a life-permitting universe, this is no guarantee that it will be a life-producing universe.
- The continuation of life in harsh early conditions: even if life could come have into existence on its own from non-living matter, there would have been immense obstacles to initial life’s continuation, development, and flourishing.
When we’re looking at the odds in terms of probabilities, this is what we have:
|
STAGES TO CONSIDER |
CALCULATED ODDS |
| 1. A UNIVERSE (OR, PRODUCING SOMETHING FROM NOTHING IN THE BIG BANG): | Exactly 0. (Something cannot come into existence from literally nothing; there isn’t even the potentiality to produce anything.) |
| 2. A LIFE-PERMITTING UNIVERSE | Roger Penrose (non-theistic physicist/mathematician) notes that the odds of a life-permitting universe: “the ‘Creator’s aim must have been [precise] to an accuracy of one part in 1010(123).”[4] What number are we talking about? It “would be 1 followed by 10/123 successive ‘0’s! Even if we were to write a ‘0’ on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe—and we could throw in all the other particles as well for good measure—we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed. [This is] the precision needed to set the universe on its course.”[5] Astronomer Donald Page (a theist) calculates the odds of the formation of our universe at 1 in 10,000,000,000124.[6] |
| 3. A LIFE-PRODUCING UNIVERSE (LIFE FROM NON-LIFE) | Stephen Meyer (a theistic philosopher of science) calculates the odds for the necessary 250 proteins to sustain life coming about by change as being 1 in 1041,000.[7] |
| 4. A LIFE-SUSTAINING UNIVERSE (MOVING FROM THE BACTERIUM TO HOMO SAPIENS | Frank Tipler and John Barrow (astrophysicists, the latter accepting the Gaia hypothesis) calculated that the chances of moving from a bacterium to homo sapiens in 10 billion years or less is 10-24,000,000 (a decimal with 24 million zeroes).[8] Francisco Ayala (naturalistic evolutionary biologist) independently calculated the odds of humans arising just once in the universe to be 10-1,000,000.[9] |
Many naturalists will simply deny design at every stage (and for all of them). It seems that no matter how much the odds are ramped up, design would never be acknowledged—an indication that the issue isn’t scientific after all. This is a theological and philosophical issue. At any rate, from the literal outset (the beginning of the universe) the falsity and folly of an “evolution did it all” explanation is apparent.
So the main thing is to keep the main thing: God vs. no God—not creation vs. evolution. And if evolution turns out to be true, why couldn’t this be one of the means by which God brings about his purposes on earth? Indeed, God has revealed himself and his nature through two “books”—God’s Word and God’s world—and Christians should view them as ultimately in concord with one another.
[1] Franklin Harold, The Way of the Cell (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 205.
[2] See Gen 19:23; Deut 16:6; Ps 19:6; 93:1; Ps. 104:5.
[3] Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, orig. pub. 1859 (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, n.d., corr. ed.). Quotations from pp. 459 and 460.
[4] Roger Penrose, The Emperor’s New Mind (New York: Bantam., 1991), 344.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Noted in L. Stafford Betty and Bruce Coredell, “The Anthropic Teleological Argument,” Michael Peterson, et al. (eds.), Philosophy of Religion: Selected Readings, 3rd edn.(New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 239.
[7] Mentioned in Stephen Meyer, Signature in the Cell (New York: HarperOne, 2009). For documentation of other biologists’ calculations, see Meyer’s peer-reviewed essay, “Intelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories,” in Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington (2004) 117/2: 213-239.
For a brief video on the intricacies of the cell, see “Journey Inside the Cell”: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/more-on-id-at-justin-brierleys-unbelievable/.
[8]John Barrow and Frank Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986), 557-66.
[9] Noted in Frank J. Tipler, “Intelligent Life in Cosmology,” International Journal of Astrobiology 2 (2003): 142.
328 replies to "Creation and Evolution: Keeping the Main Thing the Main Thing"
Wayne, I appreciate the book recommendation. Unfortunately, things about the length of a long blog post are about the extend of my reading comprehension any more. That is why I shipped off my library of books on this issue to the Credo House for their use there. I am well aware of the most popular scientific claims of the YEC organizations though. I held that belief myself and made those same arguments for decades. And even though I no longer see them as valid, I think it is important for every Christian to be aware of them and to test/validate them. And part of that comes from researching what OTHERS say about the arguments. Since most YEC creationist claims are not peer reviewed by anyone that is objective or skeptical, it is important to seek out the the opposite opinion. As Proverbs says, the first to make a case SEEMS right until the other comes and examines him. Or, as Paul said it, test EVERYTHING and hold to the good.
Ed, in your first point, you ask about why there was a flood if it was only local. I can think of a couple of different reasons. It was not only a test of faith and obedience for Noah, as well as a witness to others while the ark was being built, but ultimately destroyed to corrupt civilization in which Noah lived. So it was a judgment as well. These reasons are not weakened at all if the penguins of the Antarctic or the koalas of Australia didn’t also perish. As far as preservation of animals do, just because a flood might not have been planet wide doesn’t mean that it couldn’t have covered a significant area that before the days of planes, trains, and automobiles would have been a hardship to replenish from elsewhere.
If you are interested in discussing the extent of the flood, I think we are about to get into that a wee bit on Theologica. http://theologica.ning.com/forum/topics/olive-leaf
Here is the intro to Daniel’s facebook group:
“This group is open to everyone, especially anyone who loves science and wants to celebrate Darwins’ powerful theory…”
But for all the claims about the authority of Scripture, who ever starts there? Instead of reading about science, read about Scripture. Read commentaries.
“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was without form and void and darkness covered the face of the deep…”
“And God said, ‘Let there be light…'”
How much time elapsed in the age of the earth between “darkness” and “Let there be light”? We have no clue in Scripture.
Gen 1:1 is not a preface, it is an absolute statement; “heavens and earth” is a merism, a figure of speech that signifies the whole, i.e. “the universe”
v. 2 tells us the state of the earth following that act; Calvin said something like ‘the earth was not perfected’ at its beginning.
NICOT: “Verse 2 then, describes the situation prior to the detailed creation that is spelled out in vv 3ff.
Three conditions of the earth are described, the last being ‘darkness’ for which God provides the remedy in v. 3, “Let there be light…”
And in the following verses he provides the remedies for the other two conditions.
There is a wonderful symmetry here: Days one to three have been called, “Days of Preparation” and the last three, Days of Filling or from the general to the particular . e.g. Day one has ‘light’ ; day four has sun/moon set in order. Day two has sky and day five has birds of the sky, etc.
IN these verses “heaven” and “earth” are used in a limited sense. “The dry land he called earth” [not the planet] The heavens, here, as the NIV translates it, is our “sky.”
Day One and the days that follow are the week in which God sets his creation in order for the creation of man.
“For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day.” Deu. 20
This verse is often wrongly used. Here, speaking of that week, “the LORD made” not created as in Gen. 1:1. “Made” has the same connotation as our “making” our bed. We set in order what is already there. [ie the remedy for the condition described in verse 2]
Thus the verse in Deu. is parallel with the “days” of the week…heavens, earth, sea, and all that is in them [It does not reflect on the creation of the universe but on that of setting the earth in order]
John Calvin, ages before evolution arrived, made many great comments on Genesis: “He who would learn astronomy…let him go elsewhere….”
Calvin: ”Moses wrote in a popular style things which without instruction, all ordinary persons, endued with common sense, are able to understand; but astronomers investigate with great labor whatever the sagacity of the human mind can comprehend. Nevertheless, this study is not to be reprobated, nor this science to be condemned, because some frantic persons are wont boldly to reject whatever is unknown to them. For astronomy is not only pleasant, but also very useful to be known: it cannot be denied that this art unfolds the admirable wisdom of God.”
I am new to this thread, but find it fascinating because of the obvious struggle to make science fit with scripture despite a high level of scientific illiteracy on display. As a scientist, I cringe at such ignorant proclamations as “If evolution turns out to be wrong…” Common ancestry of species has been demonstrated beyond doubt. It is a well-established fact and I am happy to discuss the details of that evidence with anyone who is genuinely interested. Someone made a comment early on about “carbon dating of moon rocks”. Please…is there anyone else here who sees the lunacy (pun intended) of juxtaposing the terms “carbon dating” and “moon rocks”? Nobody in their right mind would try to use carbon dating to determine the age of moon rocks. The poster attempted to dismiss the valid science behind the well-established age of the earth (4.6 billion years) by the unsupported assertion that scientists discard carbon dating measurements of moon rocks that don’t fit the desired outcome. The problem is that she telegraphed the fact that she was posting from a position of ignorance rather than one of knowledge. If you want to talk about science, then talk about science. But if you simply wish to dismiss science because you find the cognitive dissonance unpleasant, you are playing a losing game.
Poor Charles has painted himself into a corner of science denial driven by biblical literalism that has forced him to take refuge in the lies of organizations like CMI and AiG to stave off the cognitive dissonance with which others on this thread struggle. As for Sarfati, he is not stupid as much as dishonest in his presentation. He’s a charlatan committed to a literal interpretation of the Bible. This is set out in the CMI Statement of Faith, which requires him to subjugate science to scripture. http://creation.com/about-us#what_we_believe
This means that they reject any scientific conclusion that contradicts their interpretation of the Bible. Any rational person will recognize the inherent intellectual dishonesty of this approach to knowledge. Sarfati and others know that they are misrepresenting what the science tells us and they also know that most people do not have the background to see how they are being dishonest. Charles is an excellent example of someone who just wants to be reassured that his untenable beliefs are validated by some “authority”.
Augustine was right when he wrote with regard to denial of natural knowledge “It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are.”
Here are the details on the article cited by Ed Babinski above:
(Thanks, btw)
Title: Finding the Age of the Earth by Physics or by Faith?
Authors: Brush, Stephen G.
Descriptors: College Science; Creationism; Elementary Secondary Education; Evolution; Geology; Geophysics; Higher Education; Philosophy; Physics; Science Education; Science History; Scientists; Secondary School Science; Theories; Time
Source: Journal of Geological Education, v30 n1 p34-58
Jan 1982
Peer-Reviewed: N/A
Publication Date: 1982-01-00
Pub Types: Journal Articles; Reports – General
Abstract: Refutes scientific creationists’ arguments that the earth is less than 10,000 years old by presenting information related to the time scales for creation and evolution models, times from stellar distances, Kelvin’s estimate of the earth’s age, radioactive decay, radiometric dating, and the decay of the earth’s magnetic field. (DC)
Identifiers: Radioactivity
Education Level: Elementary Secondary Education; Higher Education
Journal of Geological Education
J Geol Educ
Published/Hosted by . ISSN: 0022-1368.
Classification: Geology — Study and teaching.
Further information
Journal of Geological Education currently does not have a website.
Interesting that you do not want to hear from a scientist on the subject of science. What happened to the notion of open exchange?
“Augustine was right when he wrote with regard to denial of natural knowledge “It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world”
That quote is thrown around by theistic evolutionists like cheap confetti at a hoodlum’s wedding. It’s a way of painting those who disagree with them as reactionary ignoramuses.
Nobody-nobody-here is seriously suggestion rejecting natural knowledge.
Evolution is not about knowledge, or data, or empirical facts like gravity or the sphericity of the earth or whether antibiotics work or any of the legion of examples used by EC believers to ridicule non-believers. Evolution is about interpreting observations to make conclusions about the unseen past. It is philosophical, speculative, historical by nature; it is not empirical, inductive, evidence-based, testable, repeatable. And its conclusions, if true, would violate every single established principle and law from empirical science, without exception.
Using this quote in a debate about whether Darwinian evolution is true or plausible, might be relevant if it could be shown here that one of the posters is rejecting a known, empirically proven and repeatable fact of science in order to make a point.
But is does not matter where one goes to discuss evolution, somebody is going to throw out this quote and like insurance companies who deny claims, assume that 9 out of 10 people will go away.
“Interesting that you do not want to hear from a scientist on the subject of science. What happened to the notion of open exchange?”
Please explain; who are you addressing here? Who is the scientist in question? What is the subject? What is it that is not being heard? Are you a scientist?
“Evolution is not about knowledge, or data, or empirical facts like gravity or the sphericity of the earth…”
Of course it is. All data require interpretation and evolutionary biology is no different.
The past cannot be observed. Evolution cannot be tested empirically or inductively, there is no way to establish its reliability or validity as can be done with gravitation and light and physiology and chemistry and cellular biology. Science deals with what can be observed again and again.
Therefore evolution is philosophy, not science.
re:
“Evolution is about interpreting observations to make conclusions about the unseen past. It is philosophical, speculative, historical by nature; it is not empirical, inductive, evidence-based, testable, repeatable. And its conclusions, if true, would violate every single established principle and law from empirical science, without exception.”
nonsense.
show how common descent “violate(s) every single established principle and law from empirical science”.
what principles specifically, are you speaking about?
don’t speak in this nebulous generality, but be specific. show how a specific idea in evolutionary theory, like common descent violates a specific principle of natural law. (you are boisterously bluffing)
Yes, I’m a scientist and my first two posts were not published. Charles, you are in deep denial of the objective reality that modern science offers. The earth is ancient and common ancestry of species is established fact. I am happy to discuss in detail whatever lines of evidence that might interest you.
Hi Richard; of course I am bluffing. But in any case, would you mind just briefly encapsulating how you understand common descent, and I will try to answer.
David Levin, is this you?
Dr. Levin specializes in research that analyzes the molecular mechanisms by which cells detect and respond to various forms of stress, formally known as signal transduction. He focuses on medical applications, using yeast as a model system to reveal potential targets for anti-fungal drug development.
I’m a scientist and my first two posts were not published.”
Could you put them up on my facebook wall?
re:
“The past cannot be observed. Evolution cannot be tested empirically or inductively, there is no way to establish its reliability or validity as can be done with gravitation and light and physiology and chemistry and cellular biology. Science deals with what can be observed again and again.”
more nonsense.
everything you think you know is past experience, the present is this fleeing moment, no knowledge exists only in the present. as soon as you do any science experiment it is in the past, must it be continuously performed to be in the present? or is it something about the distant past that bothers you so much that you would be willing to embark on this “The past cannot be observed” nonsense. but you know that there is no arbitrary point where recent becomes distant past. in any case, all you have in your head is past, is memory, is experience, is it therefore unobservable? or is recent past to be described as your lifetime so to avoid this obvious problem? so that anything that occurred before your birth is distant past and thus cannot be observed?
Richard, what about common descent? Help me out please.
Yes, that’s me. I’m a molecular geneticist trained in biochemistry and cell biology. And yes, common ancestry is as well established as anything else science tells us. What would you like to know about common descent.
Depression in Schizophrenics: Proceedings [Hardcover]
Richard Williams (Editor), J. Thomas Dalby (Editor)
Richard, is this you?
What would you like to know about common descent.
what do you understand it to signify? Just how you would define it say to a first-year biology student on day one,
charles
you made the big general nebulous statement:
“Evolution is about interpreting observations to make conclusions about the unseen past. It is philosophical, speculative, historical by nature; it is not empirical, inductive, evidence-based, testable, repeatable. And its conclusions, if true, would violate every single established principle and law from empirical science, without exception.”
defend it with specifics. i offered common descent as an example of what i think the appropriate level of specificity. pick what you want. defend your contention with specifics: what specific element of evolutionary theory violates which specific principle of empirical science? that is why you are bluffing, you are not defending this high level principle with specifics you are trying to turn it around into me defining common descent. nonsense, it’s about you making indefensible general philosophic statements in a scientific discussion. use the science, what idea in ET violates what specific law of science? should be easy “every single” “without exception” leaves lots of principles for you to choose from, huh?
that is why you are bluffing,”
OK Richard, agreed. Now that we have that out of the way, could you please briefly explain what you understand common descent to be, and I will try to answer your question.
Is this you Richard?
This year has marked, I believe, the beginning of the end of the war between science and religion. Creationism cannot last. The New Atheists are now old (or <?a href="http://www.religiondispatches.or
David Levin: are any of these available online?
recent publications
Kim, K-Y and D. E. Levin (2011). Mpk1 MAPK Association with the Paf1 Complex Blocks Sen1-Mediated Premature Transcription Termination. Cell, 144: 745-756.
Kim, K-Y., A. W. Truman, S. Caesar, G. Schlenstedt, and D. E. Levin. (2010). Yeast Mpk1 cell wall integrity MAPK regulates nucleocytoplasmic shuttling of the Swi6 transcriptional regulator. Mol. Biol. Cell, 21:1609-1619.
Beese, S. E., T. Negishi, and D. E. Levin. (2009). Identification of positive regulators of the yeast Fps1 glycerol channel. PLoS Genetics, 5: e1000738.
Truman, A. W., K-Y. Kim, and D. E. Levin. (2009). Mechanism of Mpk1 MAPK binding to the Swi4 transcription factor and its regulation by a novel caffeine-induced phosphorylation. Mol. Cell. Biol., 29:6449-6461.
Kim, K-Y., A. W. Truman, and D. E. Levin. (2008). Yeast Mpk1 MAPK activates transcription through Swi4/Swi6 by a non-catalytic mechanism that requires upstream signal. Mol. Cell. Biol., 28:2579-2589.
Kim, K-Y., I. C. Cosano, D. E. Levin, M. Molina, and H. Martín. (2007). Dissecting the transcriptional activation function of the cell wall integrity MAP kinase. Yeast 24: 335-342.
Newman, H. A., M. J. Romeo, S. E. Lewis, B. C. Yan, P. Orlean, and D. E. Levin. (2005). Gpi19, the Saccharomyces cerevisiae homologue of mammalian PIG-P, is a subunit of the initial enzyme for glycosylphosphatidylinositol anchor biosynthesis. Eukaryotic Cell 4:1801-1807.
Levin, D. E. (2005). Cell wall integrity signaling in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Micro. Molec. Biol. Rev. 69: 262-291.
Vay, H. A., A. K. Sobering, and D. E. Levin. (2004). Mutational analysis of the cytoplasmic domain of the Wsc1 cell wall stress sensor. Microbiology 150: 3281-3288.
Sobering, A. K., R. Watanabe, M. J. Romeo, B. C. Yan, C. A. Specht, P. Orlean, H. Riezman, and D. E. Levin. (2004). Yeast Ras regulates the complex that catalyzes the first step in GPI-anchor biosynthesis at the ER. Cell 117:637-648.
Dr Levin, if you were tasked with assembling a parts list for a generic human somatic cell, how many components would you expect, approximately, to emerge on the list?
Dr. Levin: I found a lot of full-text work of yours on pubmed.
Charles,
Many of those publications are available online, but some require subscriptions. The PLoS Genetics paper is a public access publication.
With regard to common ancestry, it’s simple. The tree of life is a family tree that includes all eukaryotic life forms. I generally leave out bacteria, because their free exchange of DNA (horizontal gene transfer) makes determining detailed ancestry of prokaryotes difficult. But I imagine you are most concerned by the established fact that humans are descended from apes. We can start there if you like.
By the way Charles, you have staked out an untenable position for yourself with the claim that science has no way to unravel historical events that happened in the absence of witnesses. Forensic scientists do this for a living. Science is especially good at unraveling past events by the application of logic to data. Yes, inferences from the data are important, but this is true of science in general.
So Charles,
What, specifically is your criticism of the science that underwrites the conclusion of common ancestry? Why do you reject the conclusion that humans are great apes, cousins of the other great apes? (I assume this is your position and that you will correct me if it’s not). This is well-establised science with a mountain of evidence to support it. So, please articulate your specific complaint with the evidence.
By the way Charles, you have staked out an untenable position for yourself with the claim that science has no way to unravel historical events that happened in the absence of witnesses. Forensic scientists do this for a living.”
Point taken. I will have to think about this. My first response is that in general, forensic science covers a time scale differing from evolutionary deep time by many orders of magnitude;
also, that forensics deals with events considerably less complex than the alleged development of inorganic materials to LUCA, and from LUCA to fish, philosophers, trees, insects, humans.
I think what I wrote is that evolution happened in the absence of witnesses, moreover cannot be observed in the present, nor replicated. I mean here by the way macroevolution.
I would like to know from you, Dr. Levin, what happened between the alleged LUCA fossil, whatever you think that may be, and the Cambrian Explosion, when apparently every known phylum (marine that is) appeared simultaneously. Do you believe the Goldschmidt hypothesis?
Dr. Levin, when can I have my complete cellular parts inventory? I believe you are better equipped than myself to furnish such a document; perhaps some of your doctoral students could work on it.
Next, I would like you to walk me through it, and work up a critical path analysis, indicating when and how each item appeared or was added to the environment, how it was integrated fully into the functioning cell etc. Piece of cake, I imagine. Dawkins can help out when he’s in town next.
After that, Dr. Levin, it gets a little easier.
Since nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution, and since biochemistry is an important feature of biological science, I would like a list of excerpts from your published work indicating which evolutionary facts from previous work you incorporated in your reviews of literature, which irreducible facts of evolution were critical to your lab experiments, and what your work contributed towards further establishing that a solution of highly diluted inorganic substances in seawater or ponds or whatever, managed to assemble themselves into proteins, cell membranes, Kreb’s cycles, cell duplication apparatus, and all of the other processes observed in your work plus the 10,000 or so studies published in each issue of the Journal of Biological Chemistry.
Why do you reject the conclusion that humans are great apes, cousins of the other great apes? ”
You’ll have to show me where I specifically stated as much.
I will admit to knowing that the comparisons of human and chimp dna alleged to prove common ancestry are problematic.
Dr. Levin, what is your opinion of the tempest in a teapot that errupted when last year someone published proof that bacteria could incorporate arsenic into their dna? Have these results been replicated? I understand it was not creationists who raised this hullabaloo either.
Daniel,
Sorry, been out all day. Got to go back and read up on all the comments since we last left off. Might be able to respond tomorrow. As to being ‘misinformed’, welcome to the club. The feeling is mutual brother.
Dr.n Levin, what is your opinion of the change in knowledge of the human genome from the rock solid one gene-one enzyme of Watson, to the final tally in the Collins project?
I remember hearing Dr. Collins saying in a speech of his pride in that the project finished on time and on budget.
I can’t help wonder if this had anything to do with the fact that the total was about one-third of the initial expectation. Down there with bananas and earthworms?
Hey Charles,
Who is this David Levin guy, pompously saying, ‘Poor Charles has painted himself into a corner of science denial driven by biblical literalism’, and so cocksure of himself that he claims there is a ‘high level of scientific illiteracy on display?.’ Is he somebody important, or just thinks he’s important? Let me catch up on my reading and I’ll post further.
Dr. Levin,
Are you a follower and a disciple of Jesus Christ? If so, can you describe theologically where you are in your relationship to Jesus Christ? For example, are you a regularly attending member of a church? Which church/denomination, if you care to share? And so on, and so forth.
If you care to respond, that is.
TUAD,
Still catching up. Good questions. I’m putting odds that your questions are beneath him.
Personally, I find it in poor taste to demand or request some spiritual litmus test in a discussion like this. The fine doctor is qualified to offer an opinion on these matters based on his education and experience regardless of whether or not he belongs to the right denominations or attends some preferred church regularly enough.
Daniel,
I’m gonna have to cut and paste from page 4 of the comments to page 5 of the comments here, so bear with me as I put my thoughts together. Might be page 6 by the time I get it all together. Let me ask you a question in light of your #46 above: does a person’s worldview matter as to how they approach any stated proposition concerning the universe?
@TUAD #44,
I think this review of Moreland’s ‘Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity’ here:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A1W2OAXJ1JQT9/ref=cm_pdp_rev_more?ie=UTF8&sort_by=MostRecentReview#ROXPYSKFA2CUI
written by David E. Levin, is the same David E. Levin posting comments here and might answer your questions. Here’s one line from Levin’s review of Moreland’s book: ‘As a scientist who is not especially interested in Christian apologetics, I was nevertheless interested in how Moreland addressed the subject of science and Christianity. Only here could I make an informed assessment of whether he offers a knowledgeable and honest presentation of the scientific issues. I’m sorry to say that he did neither.’
I think his biases are showing.
Everyone has a worldview. And it effects how they approach things. But Dr Levin is here answering questions based on his scientific background and education. He’s not here trying to challenge anyone’s theology. As such, asking him very pointed questions about the status of his relationship with Christ serves no real purpose other than to set up a genetic fallacy. To further comment on those questions with the suggestion that he’s pompous or might think the challenges to his spiritual status are “beneath him” is more manipulative than carrying on a conversation with gentleness and respect. I don’t know Dr Levin. I was actually interested in hearing what he had to say re: some of the scientific claims made around here. I’m just hoping that bad behavior doesn’t drive him away before that happens.
If he were here making comments about God, it would *possibly* be valid to ask the context in which he is making those statements. But it comes across as if we are setting up this comparison and contrast where we have these “good Christian scientists” like Sarfati that can be trusted and something else. I find it distasteful. Unless you guys want to preface YOUR posts on this topic with YOUR spiritual bona fides and curriculum vitae as a valid reason for why we should listen to YOU and why YOU are right, it’s irrelevant to the topic. I don’t see where it can add anything. If Dr. Levin meets your spiritual threshold and provides evidence for evolution, it isn’t gong to make the evidence for evolution more convincing. And if he doesn’t, it just gives you a fallacious reason to reject it.
@Daniel #49,
But Dr Levin is here answering questions based on his scientific background and education.
And I’m sure that there’s no bias involved here, right? LOL
Charles,
You are all over the map with questions about a complete parts list for a human cell, detailed events prior to the Cambrian explosion, how my work might or might not impact what we learn about abiogenesis, a crappy (and since debunked) paper about arsenic incorporation into DNA, etc. It serves no purpose for me to speculate here on questions for which science has not yet provided solid answers. Let’s instead talk about things we do know.
“I will admit to knowing that the comparisons of human and chimp dna alleged to prove common ancestry are problematic.”
Please tell me what you perceive the problems to be with the chimp-human genomic comparisons. I am quite familiar with many aspects of these data. Perhaps I can tell you some things about it that you do not know.