Presbyterian Church refuses to endorse Evolution Weekend

Whew, they just barely dodged the threat of learning something not already twisted into a caricature of science.

But one must always be vigilant against such threats, hence the fictive prattle at UD.

Glen Davidson

This is surprising -- the Presbyterian Church is one of the most-mainstream of mainstream Protestant churches. They can hardly be called "fundamentalist" or even "evangelical". I would have expected instead bland acceptance of evolution.

The Dishonesty Institute gives their spiel at local and national Presbyterian Churches with no apparent problems. I even sat in on a multi-day John West diatribe where he tried to connect Hitler with Darwin. It was very sad.

Joe Felsenstein said: This is surprising -- the Presbyterian Church is one of the most-mainstream of mainstream Protestant churches. They can hardly be called "fundamentalist" or even "evangelical". I would have expected instead bland acceptance of evolution.

This is surprising – the Presbyterian Church is one of the most-mainstream of mainstream Protestant churches. They can hardly be called “fundamentalist” or even “evangelical”. I would have expected instead bland acceptance of evolution.

In 1969, the Presbyterian Church’s governing body amended its previous position on evolution, which was originally drafted in the 19th century, to affirm that evolution and the Bible do not contradict each other. Still, the church has stated that it “should carefully refrain from either affirming or denying the theory of evolution,” and church doctrine continues to hold that man is a unique creation of God, “made in His own image.”

Pew says that the ELCA position is that "God created the universe and all that is therein, only not necessarily in six 24-hour days, and that God actually may have used evolution in the process of creation." The Missouri Synod, again according to Pew, flatly rejects evolution.

I have to admit, I'm very surprised at this news. Really unexpected.

And that one Presbyterian church? I honestly would have thought that they'd not only let Matt Young preach some good skepticism on his given topic, but also donate a cool 5K or 10K "love offering" on top of it, plus give him a free lifetime ordination on the spot.

Oh well. Hot Drama in the church-house again. Always a killer.

(Welcome to the mainline church gig, Dr. Young!)

FL

Many denominations have members with diverse views, differing even from the leaders of their church. Catholics often refuse to accept much of anything about evolution, even though the pope had said it was ok (with certain limits). I suppose it is not surprising that members of a Presbyterian church are a bit evangelical in their views.

FL said: I have to admit, I'm very surprised at this news. Really unexpected. And that one Presbyterian church? I honestly would have thought that they'd not only let Matt Young preach some good skepticism on his given topic, but also donate a cool 5K or 10K "love offering" on top of it, plus give him a free lifetime ordination on the spot. Oh well. Hot Drama in the church-house again. Always a killer. (Welcome to the mainline church gig, Dr. Young!) FL

This is disappointing.

I wonder if the issue may have been more charged as usual since it comes on the heels of the decision to perform same-sex marriages in the states where it's legally recognized.

Or maybe it's just a "why bother?" We don't have Heliocentric Weekend, or Germ Theory Weekend, or Relativity Weekend. Evolution is in the same class as those foundations of modernity. What's the big deal?

ksplawn said: This is disappointing. I wonder if the issue may have been more charged as usual since it comes on the heels of the decision to perform same-sex marriages in the states where it's legally recognized.

Our responsibility as Christians is to deal seriously with the theories and findings of all scientific endeavors, evolution included, and to enter into open dialogue with responsible persons involved in scientific tasks about the achievement, failures and limits of their activities and of ours. The truth or falsity of the theory of evolution is not the question at issue and certainly not a question which lies within the competence of the Permanent Theological Committee. The real and only issue is whether there exists clear incompatibility between evolution and the Biblical doctrine of Creation. Unless it is clearly necessary to uphold a basic Biblical doctrine, the Church is not called upon and should carefully refrain from either affirming or denying the theory of evolution. We conclude that the true relation between the evolutionary theory and the Bible is that of non-contradiction and that the position stated by the General Assemblies of 1886, 1888, 1889 and 1924 was in error and no longer represents the mind of our Church.

Matt, you would have had an entirely different response to your proposed talk had it been my congregation. Even those who disagree with you would hear you out respectfully and thank you for visiting. I think you'd even get a couple of good questions.

Then again, I also know Presbyterian congregations where there would never have been an invitation in the first place.

What cam you expect from an organization that has a subcommittee with forty nine people? Anyway, we don't allow them to preach in our schools, so why should they want to learn anything about science in their churches? Why not just remain in blissful ignorance? After all, it was good enough for Jesus when he went around speaking English. He never mentioned evolution once. There was no sermon on the mount about natural selection, there was no parable about cladistics, so who needs it?

I wonder if any of the forty seven ignoramuses watched the Cosmos series? Or was their faith too weak for that as well?

Scott F said: You would think that the Luthern Church (for example) would also be pretty "mainline". Yet, there is the Evangelical Luthern Church in America, which is pretty hard core fundamentalist, depending on the specific church that you go to.

eric said:

Scott F said: You would think that the Luthern Church (for example) would also be pretty "mainline". Yet, there is the Evangelical Luthern Church in America, which is pretty hard core fundamentalist, depending on the specific church that you go to.

Matt already noted this, but I think you are mixing up ELCA and Missouri Synod. The former is pretty liberal (though I'm sure you can find exceptions); the latter is very conservative, both politically and theologically. They will refuse to even take communion in non-Missouri Synod Lutheran churches, they reject evolution, etc... *** Re: the primary subject. Doesn't bother me overmuch. Secularism's goal is to get religious favoritism out of government, out of our schools. As long as the Presbyterians support that, I'm okay with them not wanting evolution presentations to their church groups. In terms of public policy, my goal is (and by implication, you can read this as 'our goal should be') consensus that government and public education should be free of sectarian biases. My goal is not "everyone theologically agree with eric." At best, that is a side hobby, to be discussed on my free time over a beer or in chat rooms. :)

eric said:

Scott F said: You would think that the Luthern Church (for example) would also be pretty "mainline". Yet, there is the Evangelical Luthern Church in America, which is pretty hard core fundamentalist, depending on the specific church that you go to.

Matt already noted this, but I think you are mixing up ELCA and Missouri Synod. The former is pretty liberal (though I'm sure you can find exceptions); the latter is very conservative, both politically and theologically. They will refuse to even take communion in non-Missouri Synod Lutheran churches, they reject evolution, etc... *** Re: the primary subject. Doesn't bother me overmuch. Secularism's goal is to get religious favoritism out of government, out of our schools. As long as the Presbyterians support that, I'm okay with them not wanting evolution presentations to their church groups. In terms of public policy, my goal is (and by implication, you can read this as 'our goal should be') consensus that government and public education should be free of sectarian biases. My goal is not "everyone theologically agree with eric." At best, that is a side hobby, to be discussed on my free time over a beer or in chat rooms. :)

SLC said: The Lutheran Missouri Synod rejected heliocentrism as recently as 1925.

We believe that the Bible is the Word of God and contains one harmonious and sufficiently complete system of doctrine. We believe in the full inspiration of the Word of God. We hold the Word of God to be the only authority in all matters and assert that no doctrine can be true or essential, if it does not find a place in this Word. http://www.cogic.org/our-foundation/what-we-believe/

We believe that man was created holy by God, composed of body and soul. We believe that man, by nature, is sinful and unholy. Being born in sin, he needs to be born again, sanctified and cleansed from all sins by the blood of Jesus.

So you're collectively stupid, eh Flawd?

Revel in your ignorance. It makes you special, you know, in that very special way.

Glen Davidson

FL said: So it's safe to say, for example, that the major claim of the theory of evolution, the "apelike common ancestor" human-origins claim, is no-good, messed-up, and not going to be affirmed as actual Earth history within our churches and Sunday Schools.

FL said: ...the major claim of the theory of evolution, the "apelike common ancestor" human-origins claim...

FL said: Nevertheless, this is what we collectively believe:

We believe in the full inspiration of the Word of God. We hold the Word of God to be the only authority in all matters http://www.cogic.org/our-foundation/what-we-believe/

That's us.

FL said: That's us. So it's safe to say, for example, that the major claim of the theory of evolution, the "apelike common ancestor" human-origins claim, is no-good, messed-up, and not going to be affirmed as actual Earth history within our churches and Sunday Schools.

Well Floyd, if you had watched the Cosmos series, (which you didn't because your faith is too weak), you would know that, according to the five principles of science, no one cares what you believe. If you actually watch the series and find out what the five principles are, maybe we could discuss them on the bathroom wall. If you are to ascared to do that, then just piss off.

And where the frick do you get off trying to claim that you know what the "major claim of the theory of evolution" is? You don't know the first thing about science or evolution, that's why you botched it so badly. You really should know better than to come here to display your ignorance.

It should be added, by the by, that this is not “THE major claim of the theory of evolution.” ALL of life has evolved. This includes human beings, to be sure, but human evolution is not the “major” component of the theory.

FL said:

It should be added, by the by, that this is not “THE major claim of the theory of evolution.” ALL of life has evolved. This includes human beings, to be sure, but human evolution is not the “major” component of the theory.

Let me disagree with you there. Pope John Paul II "accepted" the theory of evolution in all areas except one: human origins. That's the only spot where he threw some red flags. Flags that are incompatible with evolutionary theory, I might add. So yes, human origins are the major claim, the biggest claim, and by far the most controversial claim, of evolution. Even now, roughly half of Americans say they have doubts about Darwinism in that one area. FL

Scott F said:

Joe Felsenstein said: This is surprising -- the Presbyterian Church is one of the most-mainstream of mainstream Protestant churches. They can hardly be called "fundamentalist" or even "evangelical". I would have expected instead bland acceptance of evolution.

You might think so. But I've found more variation within various denominations than between them. You would think that the Luthern Church (for example) would also be pretty "mainline". Yet, there is the Evangelical Luthern Church in America, which is pretty hard core fundamentalist, depending on the specific church that you go to.

Helena Constantine said:

Scott F said:

Joe Felsenstein said: This is surprising -- the Presbyterian Church is one of the most-mainstream of mainstream Protestant churches. They can hardly be called "fundamentalist" or even "evangelical". I would have expected instead bland acceptance of evolution.

You might think so. But I've found more variation within various denominations than between them. You would think that the Luthern Church (for example) would also be pretty "mainline". Yet, there is the Evangelical Luthern Church in America, which is pretty hard core fundamentalist, depending on the specific church that you go to.

I frequently use the library at their main seminary. They subscribe to numerous creationist journals and frequently have creationists speak on campus (I really ought to go see one, but I fear having a stroke); never a scientist that I'm aware of, although they're a ten minute walk from a major research university.

FL said:

It should be added, by the by, that this is not “THE major claim of the theory of evolution.” ALL of life has evolved. This includes human beings, to be sure, but human evolution is not the “major” component of the theory.

Let me disagree with you there. Pope John Paul II "accepted" the theory of evolution in all areas except one: human origins. That's the only spot where he threw some red flags. Flags that are incompatible with evolutionary theory, I might add. So yes, human origins are the major claim, the biggest claim, and by far the most controversial claim, of evolution. Even now, roughly half of Americans say they have doubts about Darwinism in that one area. FL

TomS said:

SLC said: The Lutheran Missouri Synod rejected heliocentrism as recently as 1925.

I would be interested in any information about that.

NONE of your faith statements (at least the ones you’ve described) prevent you from being secularists. You could, if you chose, believe all of those statements, and still believe that the government should not be promoting your sectarian beliefs or anyone else’s sectarian beliefs, but instead should be teaching in science classes what science says about the world.

mattdance18 said:

FL said: ...the major claim of the theory of evolution, the "apelike common ancestor" human-origins claim...

It should be added, by the by, that this is not "THE major claim of the theory of evolution." ALL of life has evolved. This includes human beings, to be sure, but human evolution is not the "major" component of the theory. It's just the part that you, and your whole anti-intellectual church, can't stand even more than you can't stand all the other parts. Because somehow, being materially connected to the rest of nature -- to a nature that is the creative product of divine intentions, according to your own theology -- is seen as demeaning. Pathetic.

DS said: Anyway, we don’t allow them to preach in our schools, so why should they want to learn anything about science in their churches?

We don't swim in your toilet, so please don't 'pee' in our pool.

My question would be this: suppose “what science says” is in a state of disagreement in some area that’s taught in high school biology. Is it okay to teach high schoolers that the scientific disagreement exists?

That's an easy one. If there is a genuine scientific dispute about something (not just you can find a random Ph.D talking out of his nether parts), and it can be presented in a way that is comprehensible to high schoolers, then, of course, the dispute ought to be taught.
Here's a concrete example. I distinctly remember in the early 1960's that my science books described what was then a genuine scientific dispute about the competing claims of the Big Bang and Steady State theories in cosmology. Obviously, we wouldn't have the skills or knowledge to evaluate the competing theories ourselves -- nobody below the Ph.D level would -- but it was possible to set out the main claims and some general idea of what kinds of evidence, which did not then exist, might settle the issue. Within a year of when I read that, Penzias and Wilson found precisely the sort of evidence, of background radiation, that competent scientists agreed would weigh heavily in favor of the Big Bang theory. Now if we hear about the Steady State theory, it is as history of science rather than science -- somewhat like the way we might learn about phlogiston, or intelligent design of biological organisms.
If and when some genuine scientific dispute about the theory of evolution exists, it will then be appropriate to teach it in primary and secondary school. There are lots of genuine scientific issues within the theory of evolution, but they probably are at a level of sophistication that can't be profitably taught in primary or secondary schools. But the basic theory just is "what science says," and it is what ought to be taught in science class as science until actual scientists develop a real scientific alternative.

FL said: My question would be this: suppose "what science says" is in a state of disagreement in some area that's taught in high school biology. Is it okay to teach high schoolers that the scientific disagreement exists?

Suppose one PhD scientist writes that the human eye is irreducibly complex, and another PhD scientist writess it is not. Is it okay to provide both positions to the high school biology students?

FL said: Suppose one PhD scientist writes that the human eye is irreducibly complex, and another PhD scientist writess it is not. Is it okay to provide both positions to the high school biology students?

FL said: Suppose one PhD scientist writes that the human eye is irreducibly complex, and another PhD scientist writess it is not. Is it okay to provide both positions to the high school biology students?

SWT said: The current PC(USA) position (from the last statement the Presbyterian Church (from the PCUS, one of the predecessor denominations of the PC(USA)) made about this issue, back in 1969):

Our responsibility as Christians is to deal seriously with the theories and findings of all scientific endeavors, evolution included, and to enter into open dialogue with responsible persons involved in scientific tasks about the achievement, failures and limits of their activities and of ours. The truth or falsity of the theory of evolution is not the question at issue and certainly not a question which lies within the competence of the Permanent Theological Committee. The real and only issue is whether there exists clear incompatibility between evolution and the Biblical doctrine of Creation. Unless it is clearly necessary to uphold a basic Biblical doctrine, the Church is not called upon and should carefully refrain from either affirming or denying the theory of evolution. We conclude that the true relation between the evolutionary theory and the Bible is that of non-contradiction and that the position stated by the General Assemblies of 1886, 1888, 1889 and 1924 was in error and no longer represents the mind of our Church.

1. Reaffirms that God is Creator, in accord with the witness of Scripture and The Reformed Confessions. 2. Reaffirms that there is no contradiction between an evolutionary theory of human origins and the doctrine of God as Creator. 3. Encourages State Boards of Education across the nation to establish standards for science education in public schools based on the most reliable content of scientific knowledge as determined by the scientific community. 4. Calls upon Presbyterian scientists and scientific educators to assist congregations, presbyteries, communites, and the public to understand what constitutes reliable scientific knowledge.

eric said: No, because unsubstantiated hypotheses should generally not be discussed in High School classes, and the concept of IC is an unsubstantiated hypothesis. Here is what should happen: 1. IC proposer formulates a reproducible test for it. 2. Lots of scientists (not just cdesign proponentists, but others too) perform the test and get IC-supporting results. 3. They publish those results in peer-reviewed literature; the notion becomes generally accepted. 4. Then high school biology texts are rewritten to reflect this new understanding. You want to put the last step first, and the reason is obvious: because neither Behe, nor Dembski, nor anyone else, has even completed step 1. Its been 20+ years since Behe released Darwin's Black Box, and yet Behe has yet to answer the simple and scientifically necessary question, "if I wanted to calculate whether the flagella was irreducibly complex or not, on my own, how would I do it?" They have yet to even formulate an independently reproducible test of their notions of 'complexity.'

callahanpb said: I am a "PhD scientist" if I stretch things a bit to include "computer science" (in which I have a PhD). Nobody gives a flying you-know-what what I think about the human eye, nor should they. And it is not "okay" to provide my ramblings outside my specialty to impressionable students in the guise of science in order--particularly if the goal is to foment a fake controversy.

eric: I agree with what you said, and I think you got to the main point better than I did.

SWT said: ... I need to amend this portion of my comment, as there is in fact a more recent statement (from 2002) from the PC(USA) on this point. By action of its 214th General Assembly, the PC(USA):

... 4. Calls upon Presbyterian scientists and scientific educators to assist congregations, presbyteries, communites, and the public to understand what constitutes reliable scientific knowledge.

(Minutes, 2002, Part I, pp. 495–96).

FL said: Eric says,

NONE of your faith statements (at least the ones you’ve described) prevent you from being secularists. You could, if you chose, believe all of those statements, and still believe that the government should not be promoting your sectarian beliefs or anyone else’s sectarian beliefs, but instead should be teaching in science classes what science says about the world.

Well, that sounds reasonable, doesn't it? Sure it does. My question would be this: suppose "what science says" is in a state of disagreement in some area that's taught in high school biology. Is it okay to teach high schoolers that the scientific disagreement exists? Suppose one PhD scientist writes that the human eye is irreducibly complex, and another PhD scientist writess it is not. Is it okay to provide both positions to the high school biology students? FL

DS said:

FL said: Eric says,

NONE of your faith statements (at least the ones you’ve described) prevent you from being secularists. You could, if you chose, believe all of those statements, and still believe that the government should not be promoting your sectarian beliefs or anyone else’s sectarian beliefs, but instead should be teaching in science classes what science says about the world.

Well, that sounds reasonable, doesn't it? Sure it does. My question would be this: suppose "what science says" is in a state of disagreement in some area that's taught in high school biology. Is it okay to teach high schoolers that the scientific disagreement exists? Suppose one PhD scientist writes that the human eye is irreducibly complex, and another PhD scientist writess it is not. Is it okay to provide both positions to the high school biology students? FL

Once again, bullshit. Look dude, if a scientific idea has evidence to back it up, if it supported in the peer reviewed literature, if it has earned the right to be placed in textbooks that are written and reviewed by experts and is important to the curriculum approved by the experts, then maybe it should be mentioned in a high school biology course. Other than that, no. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to include the musings of people who are experts in other fields about things they have no evidence for. You argue that out in the scientific literature. Problem is that creationism of any kind, whether ID or irreducible complexity, or YEC or any other form of creationism doesn't pass this test. Give it up already. You have been told what it takes to qualify as real science. Either find some evidence or piss off. Why is it that you have no evidence? Why is it that you are not even bothering to look for any evidence? You already know that there is no evidence because you are completely wrong and just too stubborn to admit it.

Now someone like Behe (but notably not Dembski) actually has greater claim to be a scientist than I do. However, he is also no authority on the eye, or the bacterial flagellum, among other things. So his ramblings outside specialty should indeed be kept out of a high school science classroom. The contents of a high school textbook should be limited to the fundamentals needed to learn actual science as currently practiced.

Joe Felsenstein said: Well, it's been 12 years now. I would have hoped that all those Presbyterian scientists and scientific educators would have done enough education by now to allow the presby-whatsits to decide that they can support Darwin Day. But I guess that hasn't happened.

FL said: Freeman-Herron's Evolutionary Analysis 4th edition already discusses both Behe and irreducible complexity (and its definition), and the textbook even concedes that not all of Behe's examples of Irreducible Complexity have been refuted.

a. The "irreducible complexity" argument states that if a complex biological process or entity cannot function without the presence of many interdependent parts, then that process cannot have evolved. This is not a logical argument, because complex processes do not evolve all in one step. Specifically, they can evolve in two stages, first slowly accumulating the different parts (each new part being, at first, helpful but not essential), and only later refining the process so that the parts become interdependent. The argument does not apply to the eye or the flagellum in any case, since some types of simplified eyes and flagella do, in fact, function. Though they do not function as well as an advanced eye or flagellum, the simplified versions are clearly more useful than having no eyes or no flagella. b. The major logical flaw with the "argument from personal incredulity" is that it can be due simply to ignorance or lack of imagination. Furthermore, it tends to discourage research into interesting questions. -- Freeman-Herron’s Evolutionary Analysis, 4th edition

FL said: Now I have to say, Freeman-Herron's Evolutionary Analysis 4th edition already discusses both Behe and irreducible complexity (and its definition), and the textbook even concedes that not all of Behe's examples of Irreducible Complexity have been refuted.

Give it up already. You have been told what it takes to qualify as real science. Either find some evidence or piss off. Why is it that you have no evidence? Why is it that you are not even bothering to look for any evidence? You already know that there is no evidence because you are completely wrong and just too stubborn to admit it.

Abstract Where and how did the complex genetic instruction set programmed into DNA come into existence? The genetic set may have arisen elsewhere and was transported to the Earth. If not, it arose on the Earth, and became the genetic code in a previous lifeless, physical-chemical world. Even if RNA or DNA were inserted into a lifeless world, they would not contain any genetic instructions unless each nucleotide selection in the sequence was programmed for function. Even then, a predetermined communication system would have had to be in place for any message to be understood at the destination. Transcription and translation would not necessarily have been needed in an RNA world. Ribozymes could have accomplished some of the simpler functions of current protein enzymes. Templating of single RNA strands followed by retemplating back to a sense strand could have occurred. But this process does not explain the derivation of "sense" in any strand. "Sense" means algorithmic function achieved through sequences of certain decision-node switch-settings. These particular primary structures determine secondary and tertiary structures. Each sequence determines minimum-free-energy folding propensities, binding site specificity, and function. Minimal metabolism would be needed for cells to be capable of growth and division. All known metabolism is cybernetic--that is, it is programmatically and algorithmically organized and controlled. -- Chance and necessity do not explain the origin of life.

Matt Young said: Just as you cannot easily convince a schizophrenic that the voices in his head are not real, you cannot easily convince a Biblical literalist that his line of reasoning is flawed.

You and I, on the other hand, presuppose that empiricism is correct

no one has any good answer to whether empiricism truly works.

At any rate, it is easy to get exasperated with people like Mr. FL, but from their point of view they are being strictly logical.

Matt Young said: The answer is simple. FL, Ken Ham, and others believe as they do because they presume -- presuppose -- that the Bible (or their interpretation of it) is the absolute truth. Thus, the evidence they seek is congruence with the Bible, not with experiment or observation. Observations that do not agree with the Bible are simply wrong or interpreted incorrectly.

It did occur to me that our beliefs should be open to question, since others' beliefs should be...

FL said:

It should be added, by the by, that this is not “THE major claim of the theory of evolution.” ALL of life has evolved. This includes human beings, to be sure, but human evolution is not the “major” component of the theory.

Let me disagree with you there. Pope John Paul II "accepted" the theory of evolution in all areas except one: human origins.

That's the only spot where he threw some red flags. Flags that are incompatible with evolutionary theory, I might add.

So yes, human origins are the major claim, the biggest claim, and by far the most controversial claim, of evolution. Even now, roughly half of Americans say they have doubts about Darwinism in that one area.

DS said:

FL said: Pope John Paul II "accepted" the theory of evolution in all areas except one: human origins.

Just because some religious authority claims he doesn't want to believe one thing or another, that doesn't make it the "major claim" of the theory.

TomS said: As I recall Pope John II felt it necessary to mention the origins of the soul as something not covered by evolution. This is something that I never understood as worth mentioning in the context of evolution - why not mention it in the context of reproduction? After all standard theology says that souls are created one at a time for each individual, not that we inherit them from a soul created for "mankind". (Or that any science is at all concerned with supernatural souls.)

FL said: Now I have to say, Freeman-Herron's Evolutionary Analysis 4th edition already discusses both Behe and irreducible complexity (and its definition), and the textbook even concedes that not all of Behe's examples of Irreducible Complexity have been refuted.

So I believe that would at least offer a little weight in favor of a science teacher mentioning and defining the concept of irreducible complexity in a biology classroom.

phhht said:

a. The "irreducible complexity" argument states that if a complex biological process or entity cannot function without the presence of many interdependent parts, then that process cannot have evolved. This is not a logical argument....

mattdance18 said:

FL said: Let me disagree with you there. Pope John Paul II "accepted" the theory of evolution in all areas except one: human origins.

And let me correct you there: Pope John Paul II fully accepted evolution as an account of human origins, insofar as humans are NATURAL beings. It is only the origin of humanity's SPIRITUAL aspect...that evolution and indeed all of science are explanatorily insufficient.

FL said: Now I have to say, Freeman-Herron's Evolutionary Analysis 4th edition already discusses both Behe and irreducible complexity (and its definition), and the textbook even concedes that not all of Behe's examples of Irreducible Complexity have been refuted. So I believe that would at least offer a little weight in favor of a science teacher mentioning and defining the concept of irreducible complexity in a biology classroom. After all, the topic is already a part of a currently-used university textbook of which said high-school science students might be exposed to, if they take a university evolution or biology course.

Would you be okay with allowing high school biology teachers to mention or discuss a few juicy tidbits from these particular origin of life articles or scientists with the biology class when the class gets to the textbook's origin of life chapter?

mattdance18 said: Gee, look at that, the book treated the concept exactly as I guessed.

He apparently believes that he has that superpower.

phhht said:

mattdance18 said: Gee, look at that, the book treated the concept exactly as I guessed.

Long experience has taught me to check Flawd's citations for accuracy. It is often the case, as here, that they in fact say exactly the opposite of what poor stupid Flawd says they say.

I would be fascinated to see the page citation here, and their full discussion of it.

3.7 The Debate over "Scientific Creationism" and Intelligent Design Creationism"

Summarizing his views on perfection and complexity in nature, Darwin wrote (1859, p. 189): "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case." Creationist Michael Behe (1996), believes he has found a profusion of such cases. Behe claims that many of the molecular machines faound inside cells are irreducibly complex, and could not have been built by natural selection. Behe writes (Darwin's Black Box, p 39): "By irreducibly complex I mean a single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning." Among the examples of Behe offers is the eukaryotic cilium (also known, when it is long, as a flagellum.

Behe finds it implausible that the cilium could have arisen by natural selection, a stepwise proces in which each step involves an incremental improvement over what came before: "(S)ince the complexity of the cilium is irreducible, then it can not have functional precursors. Since the irreducibly complex cilium can not have functional precursors it can not be produced by natural selection, which requires a continuum of function to work. Natural selection is powerless when there is no function to select." Once he has concluded that the cilium cannot have arisen by natural selection, Behe infers that it must have been designed.

a. The “irreducible complexity” argument states that if a complex biological process or entity cannot function without the presence of many interdependent parts, then that process cannot have evolved. This is not a logical argument, because complex processes do not evolve all in one step. Specifically, they can evolve in two stages, first slowly accumulating the different parts (each new part being, at first, helpful but not essential), and only later refining the process so that the parts become interdependent. The argument does not apply to the eye or the flagellum in any case, since some types of simplified eyes and flagella do, in fact, function. Though they do not function as well as an advanced eye or flagellum, the simplified versions are clearly more useful than having no eyes or no flagella. b. The major logical flaw with the “argument from personal incredulity” is that it can be due simply to ignorance or lack of imagination. Furthermore, it tends to discourage research into interesting questions.

Question 10a. Describe Behe's argument of "irreducible complexity." Is it a logical argument? How does it apply to the bacterial flagellum or the vertebrate eye? Question 10b. Opponents of intelligent design refer to irreducible complexity as an "argument from personal incredulity", (ie, "I personally can't imagine how this could have evolved, so it must not have evolved.") What is the logical flaw of an argument from personal incredulity? Do you think it is fair to characterize irreducible complexity in this way?

FL said: What would be wrong (in terms of science or science education) with a high school science teacher providing that same stepwise explanation of Irreducible Complexity as what evolutionists Freeman and Herron gave? The biology teacher is still free to argue against IC or Behe if desired. But what's wrong with at least explaining the IC topic to the biology class, out loud, in the same clear, stepwise manner as the two evolutionist professors? FL

FL, the least you can do is to discontinue your practice of bolding. Aren't your arguments strong enough by themselves?

Behe is right that we have not yet worked out in detail the evolutionary histories of the molecular machines he takes as examples of irreducible complexity.

He would have us give up and attribute them all to miracles.

...We predict that in the coming decades, all of Behe's examples of irreducible complexity will yield to evolutionary analysis.

Behe’s beloved cilium (flagellum) has in fact been solidly debunked...

FL, if God is responsible for IC, how does he do it, are not miracles his only option, or do you seriously belive he set up a biologic laboratory on earth? Your problem is just that, how, where and when.

WRT details, where are the details of your "theory"; I haven't seen any? Or are you, like Dembski, not interested in "pathetic detail"?

How would you fare with the this test?

FL said: Quick response for Stevaroni, who wrote:

Behe’s beloved cilium (flagellum) has in fact been solidly debunked...

Disputed? Sure. Refuted? Nope.

FL said: So for Mattdance, Eric, etc, here is your question: What would be wrong (in terms of science or science education) with a high school science teacher providing that same stepwise explanation of Irreducible Complexity as what evolutionists Freeman and Herron gave?

Failed ideas do NOT belong in high school biology classes. If you want to give ID or IC as examples of failed ideas fine, but why bother? There is still no evidence for ID or IC, never was, never will be. It has been relegated to the trash heap of failed ideas. It should never be taught as science in any class of any kind. Anyone who claims otherwise is just being disingenuous.

But the topic of the thread was whether or not churches should recognize the validity of evolution, not whether or not schools should lie to students and pretend that creationism has any scientific validity. I can understand why a church would want to avoid taking a stand on such an issue, but trying to deny reality can only hurt you in the end. When your congregation learns the truth about evolution they will realize how foolish and ignorant the decision to deny reality was and probably leave the church. You can ignore reality if you want, but don't try to deny it or there will be a price to pay.

FL said: Just three sentences from the last paragraph on Page 102. What do you think of this?

Behe is right that we have not yet worked out in detail the evolutionary histories of the molecular machines he takes as examples of irreducible complexity.

Oooooh, THAT is a helluva concession right there, ain't it?

If you can't show that Evolution-Did-It (which is the basis of F-H's anti-IC arguments), then why not just include both the Evolution argument and the IC argument in the high-school biology classroom until ye git paid up on your unpaid notes?

DS said: Failed ideas do NOT belong in high school biology classes. If you want to give ID or IC as examples of failed ideas fine, but why bother?

But the topic of the thread was whether or not churches should recognize the validity of evolution,

Notice the blatant double standard. All of the good science, all of the facts, all of the consensus of science should be ignored and instead a non-scientific, completely worthless idea should be presented. Why? Because it hasn't been absolutely, positively disproven beyond a shadow of a doubt yet! Never mind that that is because it can't be disproven because it isn't a scientific hypothesis. The standard is that it has to have some evidence. It doesn't. If you want to give it as an example of a failed unscientific idea, you might spend two minutes pointing out why it is not science and is not supported by any evidence. But once again, why bother when there are so many other failed SCIENTIFIC ideas you could present?

As for the other hand, the duplicity of the church is evident as well. They want to be free to spout whatever nonsense they choose, none of which can be proven or even has a shred of evidence, but they won't even acknowledge the most tested and best supported hypothesis in all of science. They want to be free to argue the minutiae of their myths and legends and splinter into tiny factions over doctrinal disputes, none of which is any better than any other, but they can't be bothered to accept reality when it is staring them in the face. Once again, fine by me. But they still don't get to spout their religious ideas in public school science classes.

Perhaps I should be more specific. IC is a semi-scientific idea because it makes testable predictions. It doesn't provide any scientific alternative, just negativity, but what can you expect from a religiously motivated attack on the scientific consensus? It has been categorically refuted by many independent lines of evidence. The fact that certain people cannot accept this is irrelevant, It is disproven. ID OTOH is definitely unscientific, since it appeals to the supernatural and is thus unfalsifiable. (Unless you are talking about aliens and then it definitely isn't going into science classes). Neither idea should be presented as good science, certainly not in a high school class.

Churches would also do well to promote good science. At least then they would have some evidence for some of the things they say they believe.

DS said: Perhaps I should be more specific. IC is a semi-scientific idea because it makes testable predictions.

IOW, PJPII insisted on the bottleneck idea of all currently alive humans being able to trace their roots back to one, ancestral, human couple. Modern genetic studies now rejects this notion.

Insofar as we can make anything out of IC, it is an idea that has been thought up, and rejected, several times in the history of biology. See the Wikipedia article on IC under the heading "Forerunners":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity#Forerunners

If someone complains that, say, the concept used to argue for "preformation" is different from IC, they might take this as an opportunity to give a clearer exposition of what they mean. Or they might, as usual, find that complaining "that is not what we mean" is the best explanation of what they do mean.

FL said: Exactly. But now you can see why I said that the red flag PJPII threw, is incompatible with the theory of evolution. Evolutionary theory, particularly the apelike common ancestor claim, currently "rejects this notion", so that's an automatic incompatibility.

So if the Pope's "bottleneck idea" is false -- and evolutionary theory DOES say it is false

FL said: Now that in itself is interesting, because they are in effect conceding that a public controversy over origins DOES exist. To take the sting out of that admission, they say "Scientific controversy over the fact of evolution ended in the late 1800's" and that "a political and philosophical controversy in the United States and Europe still continues." (p. 97). ... It's also clear that indeed this is a **scientific** controversy, with genuine professional PhD scientists debating on all sides. There is no longer any credible pretending or posturing that scientists are found on only one side of the origins debate.

But aside from that, the entire section is interesting and that's where we find their discussion of Behe and specifically of Irreducible Complexity.

..."The Argument from Biochemical 'Design'"... covers three full pages, (100 thru 102). This is where they discuss Behe and irreducible complexity.

(Btw, Freeman and Herron are playing word games by labeling Behe as a "creationist" without any explanation of what they meant by that. But then again, Freeman and Herron are evolutionists, so word games are part of the gig. Let's move on.)

Now, at this point, Freeman and Herron are about to launch into their explanations of why they believe Behe is wrong. Those argumentswill take up most of page 102 and all of page 103.

So for Mattdance, Eric, etc, here is your question: What would be wrong (in terms of science or science education) with a high school science teacher providing that same stepwise explanation of Irreducible Complexity as what evolutionists Freeman and Herron gave? The biology teacher is still free to argue against IC or Behe if desired. But what's wrong with at least explaining the IC topic to the biology class, out loud, in the same clear, stepwise manner as the two evolutionist professors?

FL said: But what I am asking here is, even if you do agree with those pro-evolution answers, what's wrong with simply asking those same Freeman-Herron questions in high school biology class after giving them the same basic brief definition and information about Irreducible Complexity as what the authors gave?

stevaroni said: Behe's beloved cilium has in fact been solidly debunked by a parade of researchers who did in fact demonstrate that Behe's central claim of no possible antecedent was bullshit. Some of them even did it while he was on the witness stand in Kitzmiller.

FL said:

Behe is right that we have not yet worked out in detail the evolutionary histories of the molecular machines he takes as examples of irreducible complexity.

Oooooh, THAT is a helluva concession right there, ain't it?

He would have us give up and attribute them all to miracles.

So, exactly where in "Darwin's Black Box" or in "The Edge of Evolution" did Behe ever say THAT? Hmm? Quotation please?

...We predict that in the coming decades, all of Behe's examples of irreducible complexity will yield to evolutionary analysis.

What? ANOTHER Darwinian promissory note? Isn't 150 years of unpaid bills enough? And how come the number of predicted decades was left open-ended instead of specific?

DS said: Perhaps I should be more specific. IC is a semi-scientific idea because it makes testable predictions.

mattdance18 said: Behe is a creationist.

So, exactly where in “Darwin’s Black Box” or in “The Edge of Evolution” did Behe ever say THAT? Hmm? Quotation please?

No, you’re getting it wrong again. Apelike common ancestor for homo sapiens is PJPII-fine, so long as all humans alive today are the descendants of one single pair of homo sapiens.

He thinks that it’s a mistake to call ID pseudo-science because it makes no testable predictions. As you note here, it does (at least sometimes). It’s just that the predictions don’t hold up under scrutiny.

FL said:

Behe is right that we have not yet worked out in detail the evolutionary histories of the molecular machines he takes as examples of irreducible complexity.

Oooooh, THAT is a helluva concession right there, ain't it?

He would have us give up and attribute them all to miracles.

So, exactly where in "Darwin's Black Box" or in "The Edge of Evolution" did Behe ever say THAT?

If you can't show that Evolution-Did-It (which is the basis of F-H's anti-IC arguments), then why not just include both the Evolution argument and the IC argument in the high-school biology classroom...?

FL said: Eric wrote,

IOW, PJPII insisted on the bottleneck idea of all currently alive humans being able to trace their roots back to one, ancestral, human couple. Modern genetic studies now rejects this notion.

Exactly. But now you can see why I said that the red flag PJPII threw, is incompatible with the theory of evolution. Evolutionary theory, particularly the apelike common ancestor claim, currently "rejects this notion", so that's an automatic incompatibility.

And it's not just the late Pope John Paul II you have to deal with. He got that "bottleneck idea of all currently alive humans being able to trace their roots back to one ancestral human couple" straight from the Bible. And it's not just Genesis. The key New Testament text of Roman 5:12-17, clearly features this key "bottleneck idea" -- and specifically ties it in to what Christ accomplished on the Cross. So if the Pope's "bottleneck idea" is false -- and evolutionary theory DOES say it is false -- then now you have a clear incompatiblity not only between PJPII and evolution, but between evolution and Christianity itself.

I don't know if the Presbyterian committee had that problem on their minds when they took their vote regarding whether to endorse "Evolution Sunday". But a big problem it is and remains.

FL said: So if the Pope's "bottleneck idea" is false -- and evolutionary theory DOES say it is false -- then now you have a clear incompatiblity not only between PJPII and evolution, but between evolution and Christianity itself.

FL said: ...JPII qualified his "acceptance" with a specific condition that is incompatible with evolutionary theory: a REQUIRED, teleological, and most of all supernatural (miraculous) intervention in the evolutionary process, by God Himself, without which humans would never have originated.

At no time in his encyclical does John Paul II ever concede this "ontological leap" and its characteristics that he described, to the naturalistic evolution that is taught today in high schools and universities.

You Pandas say, for example, that the immaterial human mind is an evolutionary "emergent property" of the material brain components (cells etc); and that the human mind therefore did not requiring any supernatural or deity intervention to originate. ... But John Paul II specifically rejects that evolution claim. Gotta have some sort of outside additional action by God to get there, he says. Pope's position equals "required", Evolution's position equals "not-required." No way to reconcile 'em.

phhht said:

FL said: So if the Pope's "bottleneck idea" is false -- and evolutionary theory DOES say it is false -- then now you have a clear incompatiblity not only between PJPII and evolution, but between evolution and Christianity itself.

Why does that bother you, FL? You already accept as real stories about gods and ghosts and devils and vegesaurs and talking snakes and talking asses and zombies and magical miracles, etc. ad nauseam. Reality clearly does not worry you much. Why does the ToE stick in your tiny mental throat?

FL said: You Pandas say, for example, that the immaterial human mind is an evolutionary "emergent property" of the material brain components (cells etc); and that the human mind therefore did not requiring any supernatural or deity intervention to originate. Ok, got it.

Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.

We are getting our Popes mixed up.

The 1950 Papal Encyclical Humani Generis was published by Pope Pius XII. Humani Generis contains the "bottleneck" assertion in paragraph 37.

Pope John Paul II published his Magisterium Is Concerned with Question of Evolution for It Involves Conception of Man in support of evolution in 1996. The convergence "neither planned nor sought" appears in section 4.

The hypothesis of a two-person genetic bottleneck in the human species was plausible in 1950, questionable in 1996, and has been rejected by 2014.

A minor clarification. Please carry on.

FL said: Okay, let's work with that paragraph. I do understand it. Now I have to say, Freeman-Herron's Evolutionary Analysis 4th edition already discusses both Behe and irreducible complexity (and its definition), and the textbook even concedes that not all of Behe's examples of Irreducible Complexity have been refuted.

FL said: At no time in his encyclical does John Paul II ever concede this "ontological leap" and its characteristics that he described, to the naturalistic evolution that is taught today in high schools and universities.

eric said: Or might even support my point, since the RCC's traditional response to secular high schools has not been to try and change their curriculum, but to build their own schools.

mattdance18 said: You seem to think that, because you creationists keep raking the muck and get biologists inclined to fire back matters and somehow confers legitimacy on ID. So let me ask you this. If a historian of modern Europe felt it necessary, due to the existence of a tiny minority of historians with an outsized volume and audience in some corners of the world, to refute Holocaust denialism, would that imply that Holocaust denial should be taught in high school history classes as a defensible alternative to mainstream historical accounts of the Holocaust?

eric said: After rereading points 5 and 6 of the Pope's 1996 address to the academy, I have to say you [Floyd] may be right about the Pope's opinion on the evolution of the mind. Its not really clear though. At most points during the address, he seems to go along with the living matter vs. soul separation that Pius made. That would argue for a RCC acceptance of fully natural evolution of the brain, which is clearly "living matter." However at one point near the bottom of 5, he seems to to include emergent properties of the brain and brain epiphenomena in the term "spirit." That would support your point about the RCC not accepting the modern understanding of evolution, FL.

andrewdburnett said: I find this to be very similar to the way that creationists are brought up to deny evolution. ("The Prince of Lies has confused and deceived people with bogus evidence... but not us! We have the Truth!")

phhht said:

FL said: So if the Pope's "bottleneck idea" is false -- and evolutionary theory DOES say it is false -- then now you have a clear incompatiblity not only between PJPII and evolution, but between evolution and Christianity itself.

Why does that bother you, FL? You already accept as real stories about gods and ghosts and devils and vegesaurs and talking snakes and talking asses and zombies and magical miracles, etc. ad nauseam. Reality clearly does not worry you much. Why does the ToE stick in your tiny mental throat?

mattdance18 said: And it's irrelevant anyway, since the compatibility of evolution and Christianity is not reducible to an argument from authority, anyway.

callahanpb said: I'd like to add that the purpose of Catholic schools is not to exclude evolution, and I can state from firsthand experience that it was covered in a 10th grade biology class at a private (i.e. not parochial) Catholic high school in the early 1980s.

FL said: You Pandas say, for example, that the immaterial human mind is an evolutionary “emergent property” of the material brain components (cells etc); and that the human mind therefore did not requiring any supernatural or deity intervention to originate. Ok, got it.

And your misunderstanding is to construe these issues about the philosophy of mind as being parts of the science of evolution.

This is not part of evolutionary theory.

Scientific theories of human nature may be discomforting or unsatisfying, but they are not illegitimate. And serious attempts to frame them will reflect the origins of the human mind in biological and cultural evolution, without reference to a divine creation. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v447/n7146/full/447753a.html

With all deference to the sensibilities of religious people, the idea that man was created in the image of God can surely be put aside.

The modern Darwinian theory is irreconcilable with the Christian portrayal of humankind.

Perhaps I'm just slow, but I don't get why it's so important to FL that evolution be incompatible with Christianity. So what if it is? What does that have to do with what is science and what isn't, or what should be taught in science class in public school, or anything else, for that matter. Many things are incompatible with Christianity, starting with most of the world's religions. Who cares?

FL said: [T]ake a look at the science journal Nature. On June 14, 2007, the evolutionist editorial board of Nature journal made the entire situation crystal clear. **** [sic] They said, NOT ONLY is the immaterial mind a product of material stuff (cells etc), but they directly ascribed this one claim to the theory of evolution. And they said you better NOT stick a required God (like Pope JPII did) in there at any point.

Scientific theories of human nature may be discomforting or unsatisfying, but they are not illegitimate. And serious attempts to frame them will reflect the origins of the human mind in biological and cultural evolution, without reference to a divine creation. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v447/n7146/full/447753a.html

...

With all deference to the sensibilities of religious people, the idea that man was created in the image of God can surely be put aside.

OMG. Look at what you evolutionists are puttin' on the table. Pure incompatibility with biblical Christianity.

Besides, there aren't any other explanations out there for the existence of the immaterial human mind, unless you're ready to do like Pope John Paul II and concede that a supernatural God intervened supernaturally at some point in your alleged process of evolution.

tomh said: Perhaps I'm just slow, but I don't get why it's so important to FL that evolution be incompatible with Christianity. So what if it is? What does that have to do with what is science and what isn't, or what should be taught in science class in public school, or anything else, for that matter. Many things are incompatible with Christianity, starting with most of the world's religions. Who cares?

FL said: There's no way to abandon the theory of evolution on this one key aspect of human origins, unless you're ready to abandon the theory of evolution, period, as the explanation of human origins.

callahanpb said:

FL said: There's no way to abandon the theory of evolution on this one key aspect of human origins, unless you're ready to abandon the theory of evolution, period, as the explanation of human origins.

Really? This is not a serious dilemma. For example, you could apply the theory of evolution to explain changes in the characteristics of the human brain such as Broca's area that make it better suited to using language than other primates. But you could insist that some intervention by God was needed to give us the capacity for moral judgment. I don't agree with the above, but I believe it's consistent with Catholic doctrine. I could think of plenty of other ways to reconcile non-evolution with evolution, some more serious than others. The key element is that you separate the scientific claim from the theological claim. I asked earlier--and maybe you thought I was joking--but do you consider every element of methodological naturalism to be part of the "theory of evolution"? As a Catholic, I would not have taken every part of the Bible literally, but I would have believed (Luke 7:1-10) that Jesus actually healed the centurion's servant from far away. This is not written as metaphor, nor does it have any plausible naturalistic explanation. Does it contradict the "theory of evolution" or can I just say (as I thought), this is a miracle and does not fall within the scope of scientific explanation. Even a very strident atheist who might come right out and call me an idiot for believing this ever happened would probably not insist that it had any connection to evolution. In short, just because someone disagrees with you about something does not automatically make it part of evolutionary theory.

FL said: Given a statement that I posted earlier,

FL said: You Pandas say, for example, that the immaterial human mind is an evolutionary “emergent property” of the material brain components (cells etc); and that the human mind therefore did not requiring any supernatural or deity intervention to originate. Ok, got it.

Mattdance18 replied:

And your misunderstanding is to construe these issues about the philosophy of mind as being parts of the science of evolution.

And Callahanpb replied,

This is not part of evolutionary theory.

But both posters are visibly incorrect. We ARE talking about "the science of evolution" on this one, we ARE talking about a part of evolutionary theory. There's no way to abandon the theory of evolution on this one key aspect of human origins, unless you're ready to abandon the theory of evolution, period, as the explanation of human origins. In fact, take a look at the science journal Nature. On June 14, 2007, the evolutionist editorial board of Nature journal made the entire situation crystal clear. **** They said, NOT ONLY is the immaterial mind a product of material stuff (cells etc), but they directly ascribed this one claim to the theory of evolution. And they said you better NOT stick a required God (like Pope JPII did) in there at any point.

Scientific theories of human nature may be discomforting or unsatisfying, but they are not illegitimate. And serious attempts to frame them will reflect the origins of the human mind in biological and cultural evolution, without reference to a divine creation. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v447/n7146/full/447753a.html

So you see the real evolutionary deal, chicos y chicas? You cannot wiggle out of what these professional evolutionists have said. So you cannot wiggle out of the incompatibility between evolution and Christianity. But WAIT! The evolutionists are not done yet. They wanna put some more oatmeal on your plate. ****

With all deference to the sensibilities of religious people, the idea that man was created in the image of God can surely be put aside.

OMG. Look at what you evolutionists are puttin' on the table. Pure incompatibility with biblical Christianity. And what is the direct basis of your evo-proclamation? The theory of evolution, of course. No joke. In fact, the article title is clearly "Evolution and the Brain," in case you think they are citing anything BUT the theory of evolution to support their proclamations. Yes, it's that evolution-theory "emerging" explanation of the immaterial human mind that all of you Pandas subscribe to (some more tacitly than others, it would appear.) You ARE implicated in this thing, if you are an evolutionist. Besides, there aren't any other explanations out there for the existence of the immaterial human mind, unless you're ready to do like Pope John Paul II and concede that a supernatural God intervened supernaturally at some point in your alleged process of evolution. Don't wanna do that? Then you're stuck with what Nature journal said. Your evolutionary "emergent property" beliefs do come with a price tag. You're stuck with evolution even when it clearly creates incompatibilites with Christianity, such as the origin of humans and the origin of the human mind. **** Last word goes to atheist blogger Bart Klink (2009):

The modern Darwinian theory is irreconcilable with the Christian portrayal of humankind.

FL

So. I get why you think evolution and christianity are incompatbile. I really do. You don’t have to repeat it. For now, I’ll say for sake of argument that they are incompatible. Advance on to the next necessary step in your argument, please. You’ve got an incompatibility; why can’t you be an incompatibilist secularist?

mattdance18 said:Moreover, there really was a "most recent common ancestor" of all currently living humans, and to my knowledge the best estimates put that at around 30,000 years ago.

I don't see why evolution is more of a problem than reproduction.

I see it as less of problem, because it is about groups (or abstractions); whille it is a personal relationship, the one-on-one relationship with one's Creator and Redeemer. (The idea that all of mankind is saved is known as Universalism, not standard Christian theology.) One's soul is an individual creation, not something that is shared among the species. One could even say that the species is an abstraction, an idea that we have, and the ideas that we think up are not creatures of God.

eric said: So. I get why you think evolution and christianity are incompatbile. I really do.

http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/OEBPS/14-chapter4.xhtml The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers.

FL said: Given a statement that I posted earlier,

FL said: You Pandas say, for example, that the immaterial human mind is an evolutionary “emergent property” of the material brain components (cells etc); and that the human mind therefore did not requiring any supernatural or deity intervention to originate. Ok, got it.

Mattdance18 replied:

And your misunderstanding is to construe these issues about the philosophy of mind as being parts of the science of evolution.

[V]isibly incorrect. We ARE talking about "the science of evolution" on this one, we ARE talking about a part of evolutionary theory.

And to tell the truth, rather than speaking about the theory of evolution, it is more accurate to speak of the theories of evolution. The use of the plural is required here—in part because of the diversity of explanations regarding the mechanism of evolution, and in part because of the diversity of philosophies involved. There are materialist and reductionist theories, as well as spiritualist theories. Here the final judgment is within the competence of philosophy and, beyond that, of theology.[boldface emphasis added]

As a result, the theories of evolution which, because of the philosophies which inspire them, regard the spirit either as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a simple epiphenomenon of that matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. They are therefore unable to serve as the basis for the dignity of the human person.[boldface emphasis added]

With man, we find ourselves facing a different ontological order—an ontological leap, we could say. But in posing such a great ontological discontinuity, are we not breaking up the physical continuity which seems to be the main line of research about evolution in the fields of physics and chemistry? An appreciation for the different methods used in different fields of scholarship allows us to bring together two points of view which at first might SEEM irreconcilable. The sciences of observation describe and measure, with ever greater precision, the many manifestations of life, and write them down along the time-line. The moment of passage into the spiritual realm is not something that can be observed in this way—although we can nevertheless discern, through experimental research, a series of very valuable signs of what is specifically human life. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-consciousness and self-awareness, of moral conscience, of liberty, or of aesthetic and religious experience—these must be analyzed through philosophical reflection, while theology seeks to clarify the ultimate meaning of the Creator's designs.[boldface and all-caps emphasis added]

There's no way to abandon the theory of evolution on this one key aspect of human origins, unless you're ready to abandon the theory of evolution, period, as the explanation of human origins.

In fact, take a look at the science journal Nature. ...

You cannot wiggle out of what these professional evolutionists have said. So you cannot wiggle out of the incompatibility between evolution and Christianity. ... Look at what you evolutionists are puttin' on the table. Pure incompatibility with biblical Christianity. ... Yes, it's that evolution-theory "emerging" explanation of the immaterial human mind that all of you Pandas subscribe to (some more tacitly than others, it would appear.) You ARE implicated in this thing, if you are an evolutionist.

Besides, there aren't any other explanations out there for the existence of the immaterial human mind, unless you're ready to do like Pope John Paul II and concede that a supernatural God intervened supernaturally at some point in your alleged process of evolution.

callahanpb said:

eric said: So. I get why you think evolution and christianity are incompatbile. I really do.

I get it too, and FL is entitled to his religious beliefs.

What bothers me regarding his views on theistic evolution is his suggestion that people cannot possibly believe what they are claiming to believe. ... Where he steps over the line, and I frankly find it a little offensive (not enough to feel it, just enough to want to point it out) is his seeming rejection of the idea that it is possible to be a theistic evolutionist, to assert "I believe evolution covers a wide set of scientific observations. I also have religious beliefs that don't fall under that umbrella. This does not stop me from practicing science or practicing religion."... But if someone says they believe something, can you at least start with the assumption that this is in fact what they believe, whether or not it's true or even consistent?

Don't be surprised. This is all you are going to get from Floyd, word games and arguments from authority, especially those he doesn't consider authorities but is hoping you will. He will never understand any of your refutations, he will never be dissuaded by scathing indictments, he will plow on and on, making a complete ass of himself, all the while insulting and demeaning those he is supposedly attempting to convert to his loving, caring monster of a god. You can waste millions of words in thousands of posts and he'll just shrug off all of the evidence and logic and continue spouting ignorant nonsense, as if he thought he had fooled someone. Fortunately, his nonsense is so blatantly ridiculous that no one is ever fooled.

mattdance18 said: I confess, I really don't get it. It is very clear to me that evolution is incompatible with some forms of Christianity.

Exactly. It's this sort of spiritual narcissism that I truly don't "get."

eric said:

mattdance18 said: I confess, I really don't get it. It is very clear to me that evolution is incompatible with some forms of Christianity.

Depends on what you count as an incompatibility. If you stick with incompatibilities-of-believed-fact, then you're right. It depends on what facts about the world each sect or individual subscribes to, and some faiths will be consistent with modern science understandings of the world while others won't. The "strong incompatibilists" (PZ, Jerry Coyne, probably Phhht, etc...), however, tend to argue that all (or at least the vast majority) of religions and sects are incompatible with science about method. Their point is: you can't rationally believe that revelation and authority are legitimate methods of knowledge production on Sundays, but then believe they aren't legitimate methods of knowledge production on Mondays. That makes no sense. And even if you're someone like Ken Miller, whose beliefs-of-fact perfectly align with what current science thinks is true, the fact that you employ revelation as a means of knowledge production in the church means you are accepting as legitimate a method of knowledge production or justified belief that is incompatible with the method of science.

Their point is: you can't rationally believe that revelation and authority are legitimate methods of knowledge production on Sundays, but then believe they aren't legitimate methods of knowledge production on Mondays. That makes no sense.

And even if you're someone like Ken Miller, whose beliefs-of-fact perfectly align with what current science thinks is true, the fact that you employ revelation as a means of knowledge production in the church means you are accepting as legitimate a method of knowledge production or justified belief that is incompatible with the method of science.

callahanpb said: I'm very sympathetic to this point of view

FL's incompatibility 'problem' is that to him (IMHO) this incompatibility (as he perceives it) means that one has to choose. You can be a believing Christian* OR you can accept the conclusions of science. Because (to him) there is no middle ground; teaching science as 'fact' weakens the faith of children and is the first step towards leaving the church (and therefore going to hell). It is not a rational position, it is an emotional one. He literally cannot be reasoned with, cannot be convinced, he won't allow himself to concede that his particular version of Christianity* is where the flaws are (not with the reality of the universe as it is, as revealed by the evidence and scrutinized by generations of honest scientists.

He believes that his divorce from reality is piety, in any other context it would be describes as pig-headedness at best and schizoid at worst.

callahanpb said: So (putting on my theist hat), I could still believe revelation is legitimate on Monday, but that running a unit test is a more effective way of checking my software change than waiting for God to tell me if it is safe to check it into the code base.

I think that in practice, theistic evolution is an unstable belief, because it doesn't require faith as the total explanation for all experience.

eric said: I also tend to think that while they [the strong incompatibilists] are right on the fact of methodological incompatibility, they then take a wrong next step in believing that methodological incompatibilities are problems that need to be fixed.

eric said: I tend to disagree: empirically, [theistic evolution] seems as stable as any other theological position over the time period of a human lifetime, and since that's all that matters for an individual, that's pragmatically the same as saying it's stable.

callahanpb said:

eric said: I tend to disagree: empirically, [theistic evolution] seems as stable as any other theological position over the time period of a human lifetime, and since that's all that matters for an individual, that's pragmatically the same as saying it's stable.

I don't doubt that it works for some people such as Ken Miller, and to an even greater extent among Catholics whose career is not in the life sciences. Though I never really studied the official church position, everything I have read about theistic evolution over the past few days backs up what I would have thought based on grades 1-12 of Catholic education over 30 years ago. There are no surprises for me except that it matches so closely what I picked up by osmosis. But I think one problem is that it requires a certain degree of sophistication to consider that evolution may not be an immediate threat to belief in God. At first glance it is easier to imagine God creating the world piece by piece, like a "Type A" interior decorator. The appeal of a God who sets nature into motion and (mostly) leaves it alone has a different kind of beauty to it that requires explanation. At one point I would have prided myself in thinking that this was a "grown up faith" and not like a child believing in Santa Claus. But the further you go in this direction, the less faith seems to be needed just for the basic question of finding your own place in the universe. It's not that I understand everything (I understand very little) or even that I think the accumulation of scientific knowledge can ever provide this understanding. The main question is what does religion actually have to offer on top of it? I am comfortable with the idea of "non-overlapping magisteria" but if you ask me what the religious one is for, probably the best I could do is point to "spinoff effects" like music and architecture. For moral guidance, I would probably lean heavily on compassion as a good, and this derives from empathy, which can be explained in terms of empirical observation. I.e., the golden rule follows from the fact that other people are really no different from me and deserve the same consideration. So when I say that theistic evolution is unstable, I guess what I mean is it is "non-sticky" in web jargon. Nothing prevents you from accepting it, but there may not be any particular reason to. On the other hand, if your entire comprehension of your existence and place in the universe requires the existence of God, you're going to try awfully hard to hold onto your belief. I think the Catholic church and theistic evolution can function well enough in a social context that expects public affirmation of religious belief, but that social context is rapidly on the wane, even in the US. If I were cynically going to found a religion for personal gain, I would certainly not try to emphasize its compatibility with anything else you might like to believe. Who would stick around for it? So as much as I think YEC is ultimately in trouble because of its strenuous denial of obvious facts, I think I can understand how it functions as a belief system.

phhht said: I'd be a lot more comfortable if I understood what "theistic evolution" means.

It seems to me – based on the fears I have seen expressed by fundamentalist parents of children – anything like evolution and secular humanism are concrete embodiments of the meaning of “a dangerous, evil world” that is NOT the fault of the parent or the children. Bad people are out there trying to steal away your kids; pick up your sword and shield.

There is often so much guilt piled onto members of YEC churches that some external cause has to be demonized as the reason why children sometimes don’t turn out the way parents expect. Ken Ham appears to be on this soapbox.

It’s a losing proposition in the long run; “Satan” is always winning, and that promotes anger and resentment on the part of those church members toward others outside their churches when their kids leave the church. They don’t see this as their fault for repressing their kid’s interests and intelligence.

callahanpb said:

phhht said: I'd be a lot more comfortable if I understood what "theistic evolution" means.

Granted, but it's consistent with the Catholic approach of mostly non-falsifiable statements of doctrine. E.g., I can explain more easily what the doctrine of transubstantiation means: bread and wine are literally transformed into the body and blood of Christ, but it's also a given that no scientific measurement will distinguish them from the original bread and wine http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/frequently-asked-questions/the-real-presence-of-jesus-christ-in-the-sacrament-of-the-eucharist-basic-questions-and-answers.cfm

So the point is not that you have to believe any of this, but that you can consider the possibility that somebody believes it.

phhht said: I'd be a lot more comfortable if I understood what "theistic evolution" means.

eric said:

phhht said: I'd be a lot more comfortable if I understood what "theistic evolution" means.

It means God does stuff. N'things. But science is generally right. I'm being facetious. ;) I'm guessing it has as many meanings as there are theistic evolutionists. My main point in discussing 'stability' was that there is no reason to think TEs are any more likely to be 'ticking time bombs of irrationality' than any of the rest of us. The theological paradoxes it may contain may greatly bother the 'strict incompatibilists,' but empirically it doesn't seem to make TEs any less competent at jobs that requires thinking and reason, or any less psychologically stable, over the long run.

phhht said: Perhaps not, but it DOES mean that the TEs either cannot or will not explain what they are talking about. If it is the former, that looks like mental impairment. It it is the latter, it involves playing fast and loose with the truth.

phhht said: I'd be a lot more comfortable if I understood what "theistic evolution" means. What is it they claim the gods do? Somehow modify the enzymatic effect of a particular protein? Did the gods put a divine thumb on the scales of proto-human sexual selection? How is it supposed to work?

"So long as you believe that God created the heavens and the Earth, how and when he did it is for the individual to decide"

While attending university Robin was deeply influenced by the Darwinian theory of evolution and the big bang idea, which convinced him that the Universe came into existence out of nothing billions of years ago, and that man was merely an animal having evolved through millions of years from a common ancestor, and all from pond scum. Robin says, “My faith was shattered, but praise God, who never fails nor forsakes His child, after some 18 months conviction of sin, God revealed His truth to me again in 1985 at a Gospel Meeting and restored me back to a firm faith in Jesus Christ as my Saviour and Lord.” Robin always had a fascination with science, but particularly the origin of the Universe and the chemistry of life. In 1985 when he was restored back to faith in Christ, he came to see that God’s Word in Genesis was very precise on the matter of origins, and that we did not evolve from pond scum!

But of course religion cannot answer questions about how it works. They wave their hands and you must simply take their word for it that the gods said Poof! and it, whatever it is, really happened! Really! In fact, religion can’t even show that it has ever worked at all. Water that’s been transmogrified into wine remains indistinguishable from regular H2O. Snake handlers who depend on divine healing end up deader than door nails. And so it goes.

It seems to me that many Atheists believe you cannot be a Christian and accept evolution (just like the YECs) so what on Earth is the point in evolution Sunday ?

Maybe Matt could explain.

Looks to me like the event is being undermined on both sides.

It seems to me that many Atheists believe you cannot be a Christian and accept evolution (just like the YECs) so what on Earth is the point in evolution Sunday ? Maybe Matt could explain.

… but I daresay we all compartmentalize from time to time, and compartmentalization is not necessarily pathological.

Ian Derthal said: It seems to me that many Atheists believe you cannot be a Christian and accept evolution (just like the YECs) so what on Earth is the point in evolution Sunday ? Maybe Matt could explain. Looks to me like the event is being undermined on both sides.

Well, Matt wrote “evolution weekend,” since he goes to Reformed Temple (hope that’s the right term).

callahanpb said: The main question is what does religion actually have to offer on top of it [science]?

Carl Drews said: When I receive an unfavorable peer review of a scientific manuscript, my Christian religion encourages me not to fire off an angry letter to the journal editor, but instead to cool off for a few days and then look over the reviewers' comments and decide which ones I want to incorporate into a revised manuscript before I submit it again. Does that count?

For moral guidance, I would probably lean heavily on compassion as a good, and this derives from empathy, which can be explained in terms of empirical observation. I.e., the golden rule follows from the fact that other people are really no different from me and deserve the same consideration.

I don't see anything wrong with biblical truths about human relationships being supported by empirical evidence. Getting a lesson from the Bible about handling valid criticism also saves me from ticking off a group of journal editors during the experiment.

Eric Finn said:

phhht said: I'd be a lot more comfortable if I understood what "theistic evolution" means. What is it they claim the gods do? Somehow modify the enzymatic effect of a particular protein? Did the gods put a divine thumb on the scales of proto-human sexual selection? How is it supposed to work?

Yes, tampering with biochemistry is one alternative, but it could leave recognizable tracks. Some of the possible alternatives may be too subtle for the present-day science to recognize. For example, sending a large asteroid at a right time, or firing a few vulcanoes, could divert the evolution towards the intended direction. Any type of gods-of-the-gaps scenario is very hard to prove wrong. It is equally hard to try to find positive evidence for them.

mattdance18 said: Being a theistic evolutionist does not necessarily mean believing in a god-of-the-gaps. Over on the Part 7 thread, I linked an essay by a Thomist who pointed out that the whole reason why Thomists don't generally support intelligent design is that ID has a god-of-the-gaps that is inconsistent with the Thomistic view of creation in the first place. Creation, according to them, is not a matter of various moments of divine intervention within nature, subverting or suspending or altering the order of how nature works. For Thomists, natural phenomena must have natural causes, or there's no point to God creating a natural order in the first place. Creation is an atemporal act that sustains all existing things qua existent. And the created existence unfolds in time through natural causal processes, not in spite of them. I suspect that many theistic evolutionists hold similar views, whether they have explicitly and rigorously articulated those views or not.

Besides, why would a God's purpose depend on the resulting creatures having a particular anatomy or biochemistry? Or even what planet they're on or what eon they appear in?

Carl Drews said: I don't see anything wrong with biblical truths about human relationships being supported by empirical evidence. Getting a lesson from the Bible about handling valid criticism also saves me from ticking off a group of journal editors during the experiment.

callahanpb said:

Carl Drews said: I don't see anything wrong with biblical truths about human relationships being supported by empirical evidence. Getting a lesson from the Bible about handling valid criticism also saves me from ticking off a group of journal editors during the experiment.

No, there's nothing wrong with it. I didn't say that empirical reasoning invalidates the other "magisterium", just that it may render it superfluous. But to make this a little less abstract, do you really think that atheist and non-Christian authors are more likely in practice to send an angry letter to a journal editor? If not, how does your scenario back up your claims about religion? (I'm assuming you don't think so, but you can take that route in your answer as well.)

david.starling.macmillan said:

mattdance18 said: ... And the created existence unfolds in time through natural causal processes, not in spite of them. I suspect that many theistic evolutionists hold similar views, whether they have explicitly and rigorously articulated those views or not.

Indeed. This is a quite accurate expression of my own views. The whole existence of the cosmos is creation, both in the noun sense and in the verb sense.

It would absolutely be patently ridiculous to propose that miracles stemmed from divinely ordained starting conditions. Whatever miracles have happened were most certainly changes that suspended the laws of physics. They are, as you said, joyful and surprising because they diverge from what we would ordinarily expect.

Of course, not all records of miracles are necessarily 100% historical. The Gospels are texts of antiquity and should be evaluated as such. But when miracles happen, they're supernatural events. The ordinary proceedings of the universe, on the other hand, are miraculous only in their inception. It is a credit to God's creativity that he could produce a cosmos capable of bringing forth sentient life.

It's possible, I suppose, that God breathed sentience into an early hominid a few hundred thousand years ago, but I'm inclined to see that as an unnecessary intervention.

You say, "Compassion supersedes the need for an orderly cosmos." I think that's a neat way of putting it. One could imagine an explanation along these lines: an ordered, predictable universe can bring forth life and consciousness, but only through a process which involves constant conflict. The intersection of consciousness and conflict result in the emergence of evil. Compassion, then, requires that the creator enter the creation (via prophetic revelation or via the Incarnation) in order that the creation might overcome evil from within.

I don't know how accurate that is, or if it's accurate at all. But it's a possibility, and one I'm comfortable with.

I define miracles this way: A miracle is God's temporary suspension of natural laws in response to human need. I believe that miracles are indeed recorded in the Bible. Jesus walked on water, turned water into wine, and rose from the dead.

I add "in response to human need" because that's what I see Jesus doing when He works a miracle. Someone cried out to Him for help. Most of the miracles are motivated by compassion, like you said. Miracles are exceptional, not the rule.

With regard to initial conditions: There is a hypothesis by Colin Humphreys that Joshua's miraculous stoppage and crossing of the Jordan River was caused by a landslide upstream. Similar events have been recorded in modern times, and the crossing occurred in the spring when the Jordan river is high. Thus the crossing would be a fortuitous natural event at just the right time, entirely orchestrated by God of course.

No physical laws were suspended except the laws of probability. God Almighty is clever enough to arrange the earth's geology so that a landslide would occur at just the proper time for Joshua.

Carl Drews said: I define miracles this way: A miracle is God's temporary suspension of natural laws in response to human need. I believe that miracles are indeed recorded in the Bible. Jesus walked on water, turned water into wine, and rose from the dead.

The challenge is understanding where the limitation of compassion comes in. One cannot simply say "free will", because that doesn't actually explain anything. Why is divine compassion limited? What prevents God from acting in compassion in all situations? Surely there are numerous instances where compassion could be extended without the abrogation of free will. Surely a potential rapist could be halted by a fortuitous accident. Surely a war could be averted by any number of fortunate coincidences.

Perhaps the goal of creation defeating evil from within could not logically be realized unless a certain level of distance was maintained by the creator. I don't like it, and it doesn't seem fair, but I can see how something like that might be possible.

phhht said:

Carl Drews said: I define miracles this way: A miracle is God's temporary suspension of natural laws in response to human need. I believe that miracles are indeed recorded in the Bible. Jesus walked on water, turned water into wine, and rose from the dead.

Why should anyone - why do you - believe that those counter-factual stories from an ancient book of myths ever actually occurred in reality?

david.starling.macmillan said:

phhht said:

Carl Drews said: I define miracles this way: A miracle is God's temporary suspension of natural laws in response to human need. I believe that miracles are indeed recorded in the Bible. Jesus walked on water, turned water into wine, and rose from the dead.

Why should anyone - why do you - believe that those counter-factual stories from an ancient book of myths ever actually occurred in reality?

Going back to the use of "counter-factual" -- -- they aren't. There is no logical contradiction in supposing that a transcendent creator can transcend creation.

phhht said:

david.starling.macmillan said: Going back to the use of "counter-factual" -- -- they aren't. There is no logical contradiction in supposing that a transcendent creator can transcend creation.

Apart from the fact that there is no reason to believe in the real-world existence of a "transcendent creator."

There are no such creator gods, and to believe the opposite contradicts that fact.

david.starling.macmillan said: I do not think we can make a meaningful distinction between this sort of faith claim and the opposite sort of faith claim.

You claim "there are no creator gods", which is a much bigger sort of a claim than the less severe "I know of no convincing evidence for any creator gods". The former is a faith claim; the latter is a judgment call.

I believe the available evidence is broadly consistent with the physical incarnation of a transcendent creator.

david.starling.macmillan said: You claim "there are no creator gods", which is a much bigger sort of a claim than the less severe "I know of no convincing evidence for any creator gods". The former is a faith claim; the latter is a judgment call.

I believe the available evidence is broadly consistent with the physical incarnation of a transcendent creator.

You may hold that empirical evidence is the only sort of evidence which you find convincing. If so, I don't think you can apply that consistently, but that's up to you. I don't hold that particular standard.

"There is no convincing evidence for theism" and "there is convincing evidence for theism" are both judgment calls. "There are no gods" and "there is a god" are both faith claims.

david.starling.macmillan said: You may hold that empirical evidence is the only sort of evidence which you find convincing. If so, I don't think you can apply that consistently, but that's up to you. I don't hold that particular standard.

The question is a little tautological, I think. "What other forms of evidence do you find convincing?" Whether evidence is convincing is not a question of the type of evidence, but of the value and application of the evidence.

My rationale is that observation is consistent with my understanding of Christianity, and it has a greater explanatory power than atheism.

david.starling.macmillan said: The question is a little tautological, I think. "What other forms of evidence do you find convincing?" Whether evidence is convincing is not a question of the type of evidence, but of the value and application of the evidence. My rationale is that observation is consistent with my understanding of Christianity, and it has a greater explanatory power than atheism.

phhht said:

david.starling.macmillan said: The question is a little tautological, I think. "What other forms of evidence do you find convincing?" Whether evidence is convincing is not a question of the type of evidence, but of the value and application of the evidence. My rationale is that observation is consistent with my understanding of Christianity, and it has a greater explanatory power than atheism.

So you cannot say why you believe what you do. All you can do is to claim that your beliefs - your faith - is better than atheism. Does that fairly state your position?

david.starling.macmillan said:

phhht said:

david.starling.macmillan said: The question is a little tautological, I think. "What other forms of evidence do you find convincing?" Whether evidence is convincing is not a question of the type of evidence, but of the value and application of the evidence. My rationale is that observation is consistent with my understanding of Christianity, and it has a greater explanatory power than atheism.

So you cannot say why you believe what you do. All you can do is to claim that your beliefs - your faith - is better than atheism. Does that fairly state your position?

No, not really. I would state that my belief system is fully consistent with observed reality and provides greater predictive and explanatory power than belief systems which are equally consistent with observed reality but do not include the existence of God.

phhht said:

david.starling.macmillan said: I would state that my belief system is fully consistent with observed reality and provides greater predictive and explanatory power than belief systems which are equally consistent with observed reality but do not include the existence of God.

Tell me one empirical fact your belief system predicts and/or explains which it cannot do without the literal, real-world existence of gods.

I could also argue that your belief system is in fact at odds with observed reality.

In reality, there is empirical evidence for everything from apples to zebras, from cosmic rays to the Higgs boson, from electromagnetism to gravity. Can you name an aspect of physical reality which is NOT so supported?

phhht said:

david.starling.macmillan said: You may hold that empirical evidence is the only sort of evidence which you find convincing. If so, I don't think you can apply that consistently, but that's up to you. I don't hold that particular standard.

What other forms of evidence do you find convincing? Why should I - why should you - conclude that gods are real, in the utter absence of such evidence? What is your rationale? If you cannot state one, then there is indeed a distinction between our positions, isn't there?

David and phhht, I am really enjoying watching the two of you discuss this, by the way. Seems a constructive conversation.

david.starling.macmillan said:

phhht said:

david.starling.macmillan said: I would state that my belief system is fully consistent with observed reality and provides greater predictive and explanatory power than belief systems which are equally consistent with observed reality but do not include the existence of God.

Tell me one empirical fact your belief system predicts and/or explains which it cannot do without the literal, real-world existence of gods.

Cannot? Nothing. "Explains better than"? Well, quite a few things. We could be here for a while.

I could also argue that your belief system is in fact at odds with observed reality.

Really? What specific observation is at odds with my belief system, and when in history was this specific observation made?

In reality, there is empirical evidence for everything from apples to zebras, from cosmic rays to the Higgs boson, from electromagnetism to gravity. Can you name an aspect of physical reality which is NOT so supported?

Sure: most of human history. If we restricted ourselves to empirical evidence, we would be able to piece together very little of humanity's history. Instead, we construct models of history from primary sources and then test those sources for consistency with the available empirical evidence.

phhht said: I could also argue that your belief system is in fact at odds with observed reality.

david.starling.macmillan said:

I could also argue that your belief system is in fact at odds with observed reality.

Really? What specific observation is at odds with my belief system, and when in history was this specific observation made?

Ah-oooga! Strawman warning!

In reality, there is empirical evidence for everything from apples to zebras, from cosmic rays to the Higgs boson, from electromagnetism to gravity.

So if someone wants to take a leap of faith and believe in a transcendent creator God on some sort of moral or hopeful ground, I can’t see any problem with that. It seems like a rational metaphysical position to me, so long as it is neither confused with knowledge nor used to undermine the scientifically obtainable knowledge of nature. Metaphysical skepticism also seems rational to me, so long as the same two conditions are met.

Matt Young said:

So if someone wants to take a leap of faith and believe in a transcendent creator God on some sort of moral or hopeful ground, I can’t see any problem with that. It seems like a rational metaphysical position to me, so long as it is neither confused with knowledge nor used to undermine the scientifically obtainable knowledge of nature. Metaphysical skepticism also seems rational to me, so long as the same two conditions are met.

IANAΦ, but I can't quite buy that argument. It is true that you can be logically consistent with a belief in the supernatural, but if you throw in the necessity for evidence, then you have to say that there is no evidence to support that belief. Worse, we have searched high and low for the existence of anything supernatural, and we have always come up short. While I would not utterly deny the possibility that the supernatural exists, it seems to me that on the evidence the atheists appear closer to the truth. You can, after all, be logically consistent and also wrong. If a religious person came to me, however, and said that for this or that reason he hypothesized a deity, even a deity with certain properties, and (in the absence of evidence to the contrary) that he would behave as if that hypothesis were true, then I would be at least mildly sympathetic. But I frankly cannot understand how any, shall we say, empirically inclined person can say with a straight face that he believes in the Resurrection or the claim that Jesus walked on water. We know far too much about mythology to accept a 2000-year-old myth at face value (while rejecting plenty of other myths, incidentally).

Borrowing an idea that I think is due to Harry Kemelman, the best we can say is that God is broadcasting to us on a very noisy channel, and we haven't always heard him very well, so different people get different ideas. One culture's way of approaching God may therefore differ radically from another's – but neither of them has it exactly right, and much of what they think is true is actually noise. I would argue that Adam and Eve, the sacrifice of Isaac, Noah's Ark, the Resurrection are all noise.

As for the idea that morality comes from God, see Euthyphro.

It’s all noise. Why think otherwise?

There are occasional claims that some people have better “spiritual antennas” than others; however, it’s not clear what exactly what they mean by a “spiritual antenna.”

And even if there were such a thing that tries to pull a spiritual signal out of the noise, one would think that summing thousands of signals would cancel the noise and any coherent “message” sent from a deity would thereby be enhanced.

Unfortunately, as time has gone on, various people seem to think they have the exclusive signal; but their signals are all different.

That would suggest that the signals are noise also; and people are simply seeing images in clouds.

I think the noisy communication idea isn't very helpful, since an omnipotent God is capable of being clear. I can imagine some explanation for the fact that not everyone gets a personal revelation, but I can't think of a good explanation for everyone getting a revelation so error-ridden that it is indistinguishable from fantasy. That suggests a God who is going to extra effort to mislead.

As I've said before, the key problem I see in religion is not evolution, but just the fact that people around the world believe so many conflicting things. One solution is to posit that my religion has a monopoly on all or at least the most important part of revealed truth. In practice, though, I wasn't brought up with this view, and was taught to respect all people and their traditions (within some ethical bounds).

Honestly, I have no idea how it is possible to fully embrace a universalist view of human culture and simultaneously hold on to specific elements of religious dogma. I think there are people who manage this trick (e.g. leftwing Catholic clergy) but it seems to involve theological gymnastics beyond my capability.

I'm actually less interested in understanding how Christians resolve their faith with the modern world (because I have some insight into this already) than how people do it for other religions. E.g., I don't recall seeing even one practicing Hindu comment on any evolution-related blog. Maybe it's not an issue in that religion, but surely there are other elements of empirical reasoning that fall into conflict.

People have many reasons for practicing a religion. Using it to understand the natural world is way down on the list if it's there at all. Social cohesion is a big one. It's also a vehicle for teaching values, but I don't think religion is required for this. The possibility of an afterlife and salvation is a bit further down, and may not apply to every religion (no question it's a big deal in Christianity).

I think a lot of arguments from atheists start with the premise that religion is an all-encompassing way of understanding reality. I doubt this has ever been true. In practice, the sacred and mundane have always been kept separate. A boat builder in ancient times would not have found much of practical value in the instructions given to Noah even if he was credulous in acceptance of its literal truth. People aren't right about everything, and don't have to be. Hopefully they are competent in what they contribute to society, and they are also well-intentioned and honest. I mean, anyone meeting these criteria is a good person as far as I'm concerned. Whatever else they might believe and why they believe it is not that important.

Matt Young said:

So if someone wants to take a leap of faith and believe in a transcendent creator God on some sort of moral or hopeful ground, I can’t see any problem with that. It seems like a rational metaphysical position to me, so long as it is neither confused with knowledge nor used to undermine the scientifically obtainable knowledge of nature. Metaphysical skepticism also seems rational to me, so long as the same two conditions are met.

IANAΦ, but I can't quite buy that argument. It is true that you can be logically consistent with a belief in the supernatural, but if you throw in the necessity for evidence, then you have to say that there is no evidence to support that belief.

Worse, we have searched high and low for the existence of anything supernatural, and we have always come up short.

While I would not utterly deny the possibility that the supernatural exists, it seems to me that on the evidence the atheists appear closer to the truth. You can, after all, be logically consistent and also wrong.

If a religious person came to me, however, and said that for this or that reason he hypothesized a deity, even a deity with certain properties, and (in the absence of evidence to the contrary) that he would behave as if that hypothesis were true, then I would be at least mildly sympathetic.

But I frankly cannot understand how any, shall we say, empirically inclined person can say with a straight face that he believes in the Resurrection or the claim that Jesus walked on water. We know far too much about mythology to accept a 2000-year-old myth at face value (while rejecting plenty of other myths, incidentally).

callahanpb said: I think the noisy communication idea isn't very helpful, since an omnipotent God is capable of being clear. I can imagine some explanation for the fact that not everyone gets a personal revelation, but I can't think of a good explanation for everyone getting a revelation so error-ridden that it is indistinguishable from fantasy. That suggests a God who is going to extra effort to mislead.

I'm actually less interested in understanding how Christians resolve their faith with the modern world (because I have some insight into this already) than how people do it for other religions. E.g., I don't recall seeing even one practicing Hindu comment on any evolution-related blog. Maybe it's not an issue in that religion, but surely there are other elements of empirical reasoning that fall into conflict.

I think a lot of arguments from atheists start with the premise that religion is an all-encompassing way of understanding reality. I doubt this has ever been true. In practice, the sacred and mundane have always been kept separate.

mattdance18 said: But of course, the problem might not be with the sender. That's the traditional theological response, anyway. It's not that God is unclear. It's that, insofar as we are not omnipotent ourselves, but finite and limited and error-prone, we make mistakes in understanding.

Mr. mattdance and I are certainly receiving the putative signal from God on the same channel, as, I think is Mr. Callahan, and I agree that it is our antennas that are at fault (assuming that God is broadcasting at all). I have to take issue, however, with two claims.

The cliché that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence always bothers me. If, as I said, you search high and low for something and cannot find it, then I think that is evidence of absence, that is, evidence that it does not exist. The evidence may not be dispositive, but it is still evidence.

I see no reason you cannot search for the supernatural within nature. If you did a careful study and found that hospital patients who were prayed for without their knowledge survived longer than those who were not prayed for, you might have firm evidence for some kind of supernatural, if not God. Actually, that study was carried out, but I do not have a reference handy. The result was pretty much negative (except that those who knew they were being prayed for, I think, did not do as well), so we can conclude nothing about the existence of the supernatural, but imagine if the result had been strongly positive.

Sorry -- "as, I think, ...."

On the other hand, maybe the findings of science are the coherent messages being sent by a deity, as some people have claimed.

However, given the content of those messages, the deity is nothing like any of the deities based on the reports from holy books.

And if the deity is something akin to what Deism asserts, then there is little difference between a deity that is an absentee landlord and a nonexistent deity.

As I think I have mentioned before, someone – I don’t remember who – once suggested the deity was an inexperienced “kid” who was killed in an experiment that resulted in The Big Bang. In that case, Deism would be technically true, but there is no god.

As I think I have mentioned before, someone – I don’t remember who – once suggested the deity was an inexperienced “kid” who was killed in an experiment that resulted in The Big Bang.

— Mike Elzinga

Matt Young said:

Mr. mattdance and I are certainly receiving the putative signal from God on the same channel, as, I think is Mr. Callahan...

Indeed. Let me tackle your other two points in reverse order, as I think the answer to the second informs the answer to the first.

I see no reason you cannot search for the supernatural within nature. If you did a careful study and found that hospital patients who were prayed for without their knowledge survived longer than those who were not prayed for, you might have firm evidence for some kind of supernatural, if not God. Actually, that study was carried out, but I do not have a reference handy. The result was pretty much negative (except that those who knew they were being prayed for, I think, did not do as well), so we can conclude nothing about the existence of the supernatural, but imagine if the result had been strongly positive.

Perhaps it depends on what one means by "supernatural," but if that is taken to mean something that is in some sense "beyond nature" or "transcends nature" (the precise sense would need to be clarified, but I don't think it's necessary for my point here), then it is unclear how it could be something that takes place within nature. To the extent that it's an observed thing, capable of causally interacting with natural objects, it would need to be natural itself. There's a long philosophical history tale to tell about this, but the abridged version has to do with the idea that for two things to interact, they would need to share at least some properties in common, in respect of which their interaction would take place. This is exactly why, for example, the substance dualism of Descartes' philosophy of mind is generally regarded as a colossal failure, whatever the merits of the rest of his thought may or may not be. Having declared that mind and body are completely unlike one another in every way, the former being fundamentally thought while the latter being fundamental spatial material, he cut off any logical possibility of their interaction. He ties himself in knots trying to get out of it, or more often just makes comments that make no sense (e.g. that the interaction of mind and body takes place within the pineal gland of the brain -- because the pineal gland is body part that exists in space, and the mind isn't supposed to be subject to spatial predicates). A similar point can be made about supernatural phenomena. If they really are "beyond" nature, if they really do "transcend" nature, then how exactly are they supposed to interact with nature? Consider something like a ghost. If there were any such thing, we could know this only because it is observed -- and that's how ghosts are "depicted," after all, isn't it? As having certain empirically observable properties? It might seem paradoxical, but the only way to explain anything about ghosts in the world of nature would be for the ghosts themselves to be natural (albeit playing by natural rules that we would not understand yet). And I hope that none of what I've said gives the impression that I believe in ghosts: I don't, precisely because I think that in order to show the existence of any natural thing, including ghosts, would require evidence that so far is not at all forthcoming. And as for the prayer example, I don't see why it couldn't admit of some sort of naturalistic explanation, either. There is no observable effect of praying for the sick on their health, except when those being prayed for know it's happening, in which case the outcomes are more negative. This could be explained naturally -- increased anxiety, hope for an impending future state, etc, all of which are ultimately brain processes that could have an impact on health outcomes. But if it were the case that there were a positive effect generally observed, this too could be explained naturally -- perhaps again via brain processes if the patient knew, or maybe through some other process even if he didn't. Perhaps it could even be like the effect of music on plants. Plants don't hear, and music itself has no impact. But early -- and very shoddy, rather hilarious, really -- studies indicating a botanic preference for classical over rock were carried out by researchers who had that preference, and who tended the plants subtly differently depending on their own enjoyment of the music around them. If the caregivers are themselves praying, or know or even think others are, a similar thing could happen. In short, it doesn't seem to me that there is any natural phenomenon that would necessarily require an appeal to supernatural causes. In philosophy, this has become known as the "causal closure of the physical," well-attested by the explanatory and predictive success of the natural sciences, and hence a main argument against any sort of god-of-the-gaps view. If there is anything truly transcendent and supernatural, it cannot be discerned in nature itself by any natural means -- including ordinary everyday observation, which is a perfectly natural process.

The cliche that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence always bothers me. If, as I said, you search high and low for something and cannot find it, then I think that is evidence of absence, that is, evidence that it does not exist. The evidence may not be dispositive, but it is still evidence.

The difficulty here is that the object in question is defined as transcendent, dispositive evidence is in principle impossible. If we say that there are no unicorns, for example, we are making an assertion about an ostensibly natural object. It's easy to imagine what the evidence for the existence of such a creature would be, in principle. There just isn't any in fact. Since the burden of proof, in a cognitive context, is on the one making the positive existential claim, this means we can be pretty certain that thousands of years of lacking the evidence is a good indication that unicorns don't exist. (And there are good evolutionary reasons for making this inference, too.) But it's just an empirical judgment, and though it's as certain as any negative existential judgment could get, it remains revisable in principle on the basis of new evidence. When it comes to the existence of a transcendent deity, it isn't clear what evidence there could be in the first place. It's been defined in terms of something that is outside the bounds of nature, which is pretty much the only place where "evidence" matters. To ask for natural evidence of a being that transcends nature is a category mistake. I do think there are plenty of other reasons that make disbelief in such a being considerably more rational than the alternative -- conceptual problems with the nature of said being (Trinity, problem of evil, etc), and natural evidence for the anthropic projections of various kinds (e.g. anthropomorphism, Incarnation). But I think that the lack of natural evidence for a being that is not conceived as natural in the first place -- and has been conceptualized a lot more rigorously than "ghosts," for sure -- is kind of a non-starter. But any positive existential claim about it cannot be knowledge, either. Does that make sense? Went a bit longer than I'd expected....

mattdance18 said: That's the traditional theological response, anyway. It's not that God is unclear. It's that, insofar as we are not omnipotent ourselves, but finite and limited and error-prone, we make mistakes in understanding.

Then again I asked him: ‘Supposing the Pope looked up and saw a cloud and said ‘It’s going to rain’, would that be bound to happen?’ ‘Oh, yes, Father.’ ‘But supposing it didn’t?’ He thought a moment and said, “I suppose it would be sort of raining spiritually, only we were too sinful to see it.’”

Perhaps it depends on what one means by “supernatural,” but if that is taken to mean something that is in some sense “beyond nature” or “transcends nature” (the precise sense would need to be clarified, but I don’t think it’s necessary for my point here), then it is unclear how it could be something that takes place within nature. To the extent that it’s an observed thing, capable of causally interacting with natural objects, it would need to be natural itself.

Frank J said:

As I think I have mentioned before, someone – I don’t remember who – once suggested the deity was an inexperienced “kid” who was killed in an experiment that resulted in The Big Bang.

— Mike Elzinga

You might be thinking of Gary Larson and "The Far Side" (scroll down to "God as a kid")

This result is unfortunate, but religions are between a rock and a hard place. And yes I know that makes many people happy, but not me, even though I’m even less likely to ever join an organized religion as the happy ones are. But I think that we - defenders of science - are part of the problem, by continuing to reinforce the misconception that creationism/ID is a “mere belief,” to which most non-creationists react with “what’s the harm, let them believe.” To be as blunt as possible, modern creationism/ID is what these religions call a sin. So it makes no sense to portray it as anything less.

Matt Young said: I will have to try to find that study, though its results really do not bear on your contention that anything supernatural must be completely, wholly, 100 % divorced from nature. Right now, however, I am preoccupied by some big soccer match.

callahanpb said: I think the noisy communication idea isn't very helpful, since an omnipotent God is capable of being clear. I can imagine some explanation for the fact that not everyone gets a personal revelation, but I can't think of a good explanation for everyone getting a revelation so error-ridden that it is indistinguishable from fantasy. That suggests a God who is going to extra effort to mislead. As I've said before, the key problem I see in religion is not evolution, but just the fact that people around the world believe so many conflicting things. One solution is to posit that my religion has a monopoly on all or at least the most important part of revealed truth. In practice, though, I wasn't brought up with this view, and was taught to respect all people and their traditions (within some ethical bounds). Honestly, I have no idea how it is possible to fully embrace a universalist view of human culture and simultaneously hold on to specific elements of religious dogma. I think there are people who manage this trick (e.g. leftwing Catholic clergy) but it seems to involve theological gymnastics beyond my capability.

I think a lot of arguments from atheists start with the premise that religion is an all-encompassing way of understanding reality. I doubt this has ever been true. In practice, the sacred and mundane have always been kept separate. A boat builder in ancient times would not have found much of practical value in the instructions given to Noah even if he was credulous in acceptance of its literal truth. People aren't right about everything, and don't have to be. Hopefully they are competent in what they contribute to society, and they are also well-intentioned and honest. I mean, anyone meeting these criteria is a good person as far as I'm concerned. Whatever else they might believe and why they believe it is not that important.

mattdance18 said:

But I frankly cannot understand how any, shall we say, empirically inclined person can say with a straight face that he believes in the Resurrection or the claim that Jesus walked on water. We know far too much about mythology to accept a 2000-year-old myth at face value (while rejecting plenty of other myths, incidentally).

I agree, if we're talking about some sort of supernatural event occurring within nature. As noted, that seems conceptually incoherent to me. At the very least, even if one does not believe that such events could ever be proved, one would have to believe that nature gets disrupted here and there, and that seems to take us right back to the god-of-the-gaps. (And for what it's worth, everything about the divine status of Jesus makes Christianity significantly more philosophically problematic than Judaism or Islam. The Incarnation itself is trouble from the get-go.)

Just Bob said:

mattdance18 said: But of course, the problem might not be with the sender. That's the traditional theological response, anyway. It's not that God is unclear. It's that, insofar as we are not omnipotent ourselves, but finite and limited and error-prone, we make mistakes in understanding.

But it seems to me that that IS a problem with the sender -- especially an omnipotent one who KNOWS our abilities and lack thereof. Being omnipotent, he COULD have made it perfectly clear and understandable, and suppressed, overwhelmed, or completely eliminated the noise. Since he didn't, that means he CHOSE not to. (Or else he's not there at all. No 'he' and no 'there'.

Matt Young said: The cliché that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence always bothers me. If, as I said, you search high and low for something and cannot find it, then I think that is evidence of absence, that is, evidence that it does not exist. The evidence may not be dispositive, but it is still evidence.

This might be the study you had in mind.

Just now catching up with reading the last 4-5 pages. Interesting.

I see several posters asking "Who Cares?" on the Incompatiblity issue.

Simply stated, the sales-pitch "Evolution is compatible with Christianity" is a major argument evolutionists use to try to convince voters, elected officials, parents, teachers, even science students, to buy into evolution and to censor out alternatives.

It even appears in Freeman-Herron's textbook Evolutionary Analysis 4th ed., where they quote Pope John Paul II's so-called "acceptance" of evolution. (I gotta check the page number again but I think it's near page 104 or so.)

Now why would any religious declaration the Pope gives, become an argument for a advanced university biology textbook? Such science textbooks are supposed to be all about science.

The answer is obvious. When you're selling evolution to the masses, you gotta speak in the language of the person you're trying to hornswoggle.

And the majority of folks are NOT atheists, so they speak some form of religionese. So you get this highly visible effort (Clergy Letter Project, NCSE, Biologos, etc) to make Evolution sound compatible with Christianity even though all sides know that it ain't.

So if you ask, "Who Cares", the answer is that a lot of people care, it's something to take seriously.

FL

Hey Floyd, read any other parts of that textbook? You know, the ones about the scientific evidence for evolution. Did you learn anything? No? That's what I thought.

FL said: So if you ask, "Who Cares", the answer is that a lot of people care, it's something to take seriously.

FL said: Simply stated, the sales-pitch "Evolution is compatible with Christianity" is a major argument evolutionists use to try to convince voters, elected officials, parents, teachers, even science students, to buy into evolution and to censor out alternatives.

callahanpb said: However it's also material that evolution may not be incompatible with all or most religions whose believers self-identify as practicing Christianity. This is not such an important philosophical point, but has some pragmatic significance in determining the impact of teaching the best science in science class. It's a secondary argument, but useful in providing some reassurance to the vast majority of (self-identified) Christians who are not required to interpret Genesis in a manner that contradicts science.

Matt Young said:

Perhaps it depends on what one means by “supernatural,” but if that is taken to mean something that is in some sense “beyond nature” or “transcends nature” (the precise sense would need to be clarified, but I don’t think it’s necessary for my point here), then it is unclear how it could be something that takes place within nature. To the extent that it’s an observed thing, capable of causally interacting with natural objects, it would need to be natural itself.

Theists postulate a deity that exists outside nature yet can influence nature, so we take them at their word and look for evidence of this deity.

Some people claim that prayer is efficacious, so we perform statistical studies to analyze whether it is so. ... Yes, of course, prayer could be efficacious for natural reasons. Possibly the group that knew it was being prayed for was affected psychologically in some way. But it is hard to see how a natural cause could have affected the group that did not know it was being prayed for, and indeed (if I remember correctly) they were indistinguishable from the control group.

If an entity existed outside nature and had no conceivable connection with nature, then it might as well not exist, and there is no point talking about it. The only entities I am interested in are those that can have a physical effect (including, I suppose, a psychological effectI will have to try to find that study, though its results really do not bear on your contention that anything supernatural must be completely, wholly, 100% divorced from nature.

david.starling.macmillan said:

mattdance18 said: I agree, if we're talking about some sort of supernatural event occurring within nature. As noted, that seems conceptually incoherent to me. At the very least, even if one does not believe that such events could ever be proved, one would have to believe that nature gets disrupted here and there, and that seems to take us right back to the god-of-the-gaps. (And for what it's worth, everything about the divine status of Jesus makes Christianity significantly more philosophically problematic than Judaism or Islam. The Incarnation itself is trouble from the get-go.)

Not for nothing is the Incarnation considered to be the greatest of all miracles -- or even the greatest of all possible miracles -- by numerous theologians.

But I'm not sure I follow your point about god-of-the-gaps. Supposing that a nonphysical cause could (in theory) have an effect on physical systems is not, I think, god of the gaps. There is no natural phenomenon which is being proposed as the seat of divine action.

FL said: When you're selling evolution to the masses, you gotta speak in the language of the person you're trying to hornswoggle. And the majority of folks are NOT atheists, so they speak some form of religionese. So you get this highly visible effort (Clergy Letter Project, NCSE, Biologos, etc) to make Evolution sound compatible with Christianity even though all sides know that it ain't. [emphasis added]

Accepting for sake of argument that the two are incompatible, explain the logic of how you get from there to being a nonsecularist? You think there’s a conflict - we get that. But that doesn’t answer the question of why should US government-representing educators endorse religious beliefs when they conflict with science?

There is much evidence from these studies (P. falciparum, HIV, E.Coli, chloroquine resistance, etc) that, in their incoherent flailing for short-term advantage, Darwinian processes can easily break molecular machinery. There is no evidence that Darwinian processes can take the multiple, coherent steps needed to build new molecular machinery, the kind os machinery that fills the cell. -- biochemist Dr. Michael Behe, The Edge of Evolution, pp 162-163

typo correction: Behe's quotation should read "...the kind of machinery that fills the cell."

FL

FL said: My understanding is that the following scientific assessment is indeed accurate as of today, July 15:

There is much evidence from these studies (P. falciparum, HIV, E.Coli, chloroquine resistance, etc) that, in their incoherent flailing for short-term advantage, Darwinian processes can easily break molecular machinery. There is no evidence that Darwinian processes can take the multiple, coherent steps needed to build new molecular machinery, the kind of machinery that fills the cell. -- biochemist Dr. Michael Behe, The Edge of Evolution, pp 162-163

The quoted statement is just 100 percent science fact, and at least as of today, NO scientific refutation of it.

Am I being clearer this time around?

I see! So there is no such thing as a person who honestly believes that evolution and Christianity can be compatible.

FL: Are you even capable of listing those "Big Five Incompatibilities" of yours here so that I may summarily eviscerate them?

david.starling.macmillan said: Your understanding is wrong. The foregoing pseudoscientific babbling is not accurate today and was not accurate when it was originally uttered. There are numerous simple scientific refutations of it, refutations which have been shared with you on numerous occasions. It is 100 percent false and misleading.

FL said: It even appears in Freeman-Herron's textbook Evolutionary Analysis 4th ed., where they quote Pope John Paul II's so-called "acceptance" of evolution. (I gotta check the page number again but I think it's near page 104 or so.) FL

FL said: Eric writes,

Accepting for sake of argument that the two are incompatible, explain the logic of how you get from there to being a nonsecularist? You think there’s a conflict - we get that. But that doesn’t answer the question of why should US government-representing educators endorse religious beliefs when they conflict with science?

The conflict clearly exists, as has been demonstrated. But now let's look at your question Eric. I've never said anything about science teachers endorsing religious beliefs in the science classroom. You and I should -- should -- have been able to already agree on a specifically non-religious, non-creationist science-education compromise like the Louisiana Science Education Act by now. (Here's the LSEA text for readers.) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/06/text_of_louisiana_science_educ007391.html But you oppose the LSEA even though it clearly prohibits ANY promotion of religious beliefs or creationism. Teaching creationism is specifically illegal under this bill. The ACLU itself, in all these years, has never found ANY reason to file a lawsuit. So here we have a law that does exactly what you want. All the secular bases covered. So why do you oppose the LSEA? **** We both know why. Ultimately, you don't really want ONLY the secular bases covered. Just like your Panda Pals, you want a lot MORE, don't you? You want **Censorship** more than you want science education, That's what you guys want. But the LSEA refuses to promote censorship because it can get in the way of science education and science progress (just ask Galileo!). Here's an example for you, a scientific example. My understanding is that the following scientific assessment is indeed accurate as of today, July 15:

There is much evidence from these studies (P. falciparum, HIV, E.Coli, chloroquine resistance, etc) that, in their incoherent flailing for short-term advantage, Darwinian processes can easily break molecular machinery. There is no evidence that Darwinian processes can take the multiple, coherent steps needed to build new molecular machinery, the kind os machinery that fills the cell. -- biochemist Dr. Michael Behe, The Edge of Evolution, pp 162-163

Notice, in this one quoted statement, there's NO endorsement nor suggestion of: YEC, OEC, ID, IC, SC, TE, Bible, Koran, Popes, Torah, Talmud, Vedas, Theism, Deism, Paley, Philosophy, at all. The quoted statement is just 100 percent science fact, and at least as of today, NO scientific refutation of it. So this one statement would qualify, under LSEA, for a biology teacher to offer it in a high school biology classroom, IF the teacher specifically follows the chain of command all the way from school admins through the local school board and then the State Board, and obtained the permissions. **** But that's why you oppose LSEA, Eric. Because now you'd have a verifiable, unrefuted, scientific statement that is non-religious and non-creationist and non-ID, but which if shared with a high school biology class could create a doubt or two about the theory of evolution in a few students' minds. And that's what you're afraid of, AFAIK. You would rather teach **Censorship** than teach science, if teaching science meant possible questionings, critical thinkings, and DOUBTS about evolution. There is no such thing as "self-correcting science" in Pandaville. You Pandas want future converts, not future scientists. But is that what you want Eric? Are you into Science, or are you into Censorship? Are you able to support statewide legal protections like LSEA for science teachers who follow the rules, obtain all the permissions, and teach critical-thinking skills? So give me a good answer, and make it detailed. (You getting all this, David M?) FL

FL said: Here's an example for you, a scientific example. My understanding is that the following scientific assessment is indeed accurate as of today, July 15:

There is much evidence from these studies (P. falciparum, HIV, E.Coli, chloroquine resistance, etc) that, in their incoherent flailing for short-term advantage, Darwinian processes can easily break molecular machinery. There is no evidence that Darwinian processes can take the multiple, coherent steps needed to build new molecular machinery, the kind os machinery that fills the cell. -- biochemist Dr. Michael Behe, The Edge of Evolution, pp 162-163

Notice, in this one quoted statement, there's NO endorsement nor suggestion of: YEC, OEC, ID, IC, SC, TE, Bible, Koran, Popes, Torah, Talmud, Vedas, Theism, Deism, Paley, Philosophy, at all. The quoted statement is just 100 percent science fact, and at least as of today, NO scientific refutation of it.

FL said: Mattdance wrote,

I see! So there is no such thing as a person who honestly believes that evolution and Christianity can be compatible.

It's not so much a matter of honest belief, but of an informed belief.

And you yourself have not offered any such refutation, though I would welcome it if you did.

david.starling.macmillan said: FL: Are you even capable of listing those "Big Five Incompatibilities" of yours here so that I may summarily eviscerate them?

FL said: But you oppose the LSEA even though it clearly prohibits ANY promotion of religious beliefs or creationism. Teaching creationism is specifically illegal under this bill. The ACLU itself, in all these years, has never found ANY reason to file a lawsuit. So here we have a law that does exactly what you want. All the secular bases covered. So why do you oppose the LSEA?

There is no evidence that Darwinian processes can take the multiple, coherent steps needed to build new molecular machinery, the kind os machinery that fills the cell.

The quoted statement is just 100 percent science fact, and at least as of today, NO scientific refutation of it.

There is no such thing as "self-correcting science" in Pandaville. You Pandas want future converts, not future scientists. But is that what you want Eric?

Are you into Science, or are you into Censorship?

So give me a good answer, and make it detailed. (You getting all this, David M?)

mattdance18 said:

david.starling.macmillan said: FL: Are you even capable of listing those "Big Five Incompatibilities" of yours here so that I may summarily eviscerate them?

He already did, in a link on the thread to your Part 7 article. Here you go: http://cjonline.com/interact/blog/contra_mundum/2010-05-22/two_religions_part_two But note that the entire thing consists of appeals to authority. Moreover, to the extent that there is any substance there, you've already eviscerated these points multiple times in your series and the discussions about it. So I wouldn't waste my time, if I were you. He's shifting the burden of proof, playing the "I-asserted-and-nobody-refuted" game, plus the "ignore-and-repeat" game, too. Worthless.

I’m into science. That’s why I think Behe should actually do some, and publish the results in peer reviewed journals, and have his ID ideas confirmed by mainstream scientists, BEFORE his ideas go before High Schoolers.

Hey Floyd, that textbook is now in its 5th ed. has replaced the 4th ed. in classes from August 2013 on. You might want to update your library and check it out.

FL said: Keelyn writes,

Hey Floyd, that textbook is now in its 5th ed. has replaced the 4th ed. in classes from August 2013 on. You might want to update your library and check it out.

Sounds good; thanks. However, since you did not mention any deletions of any of the 4th edition topics that I've mentioned and quoted so far, I will assume that nothing has changed in those specific areas. FL

Yeah, I have a policy of not clicking any links provided by FL.

FL said: David M writes,

Yeah, I have a policy of not clicking any links provided by FL.

That's okay. You asked for the Big Five, and Mattdance has provided it for you. I would have provided it for you at this time, if he hadn't. However, it does not make sense for you to request another poster to provide something for you, and then when the other poster accepts your request, to refuse to click on the respondent's link which specifically contains the requested provision. Sheesh. For the sake of rationality, perhaps you'll consider a policy revision? FL

I think the results fit a lot more easily into the viewpoint of The Edge of Evolution. One of the major points of the book was that if only one mutation is needed to confer some ability, then Darwinian evolution has little problem finding it. But if more than one is needed, the probability of getting all the right ones grows exponentially worse. -- Michael Behe (blog), from 2008, re-printed by Anika Smith at ENV. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/06/michael_behe_on_e_coli_mutatio007291.html

mattdance18 said:

FL said: David M writes,

Yeah, I have a policy of not clicking any links provided by FL.

That's okay. You asked for the Big Five, and Mattdance has provided it for you. I would have provided it for you at this time, if he hadn't. However, it does not make sense for you to request another poster to provide something for you, and then when the other poster accepts your request, to refuse to click on the respondent's link which specifically contains the requested provision. Sheesh. For the sake of rationality, perhaps you'll consider a policy revision?

In fairness, as noted, your link doesn't provide arguments for the five points in question. So I figured he shouldn't waste his time.

FL said: Here, consider this:

I think... -- Michael Behe (blog)

I’m into science. That’s why I think Behe should actually do some, and publish the results in peer reviewed journals, and have his ID ideas confirmed by mainstream scientists, BEFORE his ideas go before High Schoolers.

There is much evidence from these studies (P. falciparum, HIV, E.Coli, chloroquine resistance, etc) that, in their incoherent flailing for short-term advantage, Darwinian processes can easily break molecular machinery. There is no evidence that Darwinian processes can take the multiple, coherent steps needed to build new molecular machinery, the kind os machinery that fills the cell. – biochemist Dr. Michael Behe, The Edge of Evolution, pp 162-163.

There is no evidence that Darwinian processes can take the multiple, coherent steps needed to build new molecular machinery, the kind os [sic] machinery that fills the cell. – biochemist Dr. Michael Behe, The Edge of Evolution, pp 162-163.

... Are you now able to permit it? [I.e, will you now support its teaching?]

FL said: Returning to Mattdance, he wrote: Meanwhile, over at the Long-Term Experimental Evolution project run by Richard Lenski, evidence for multiple mutations enabling E. coli to metabolize citrate in an aerobic environment was scrupulously documented. Actually, Lenski's E. Coli results and the citrate thing (and also the similar but smaller scale E. coli work of biologist Ralph Seelke, but that's another story) is a big scientific reason why Behe said what he said (which I quoted just a few posts earlier) in The Edge of Evolution. Here, consider this:

I think the results fit a lot more easily into the viewpoint of The Edge of Evolution. One of the major points of the book was that if only one mutation is needed to confer some ability, then Darwinian evolution has little problem finding it. But if more than one is needed, the probability of getting all the right ones grows exponentially worse. -- Michael Behe (blog), from 2008, re-printed by Anika Smith at ENV. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/06/michael_behe_on_e_coli_mutatio007291.html

FL

FL said: Again, Behe's quotation totally leaves out any mention or suggestion of ID or IC. And [the] specific demand that Behe get published in the peer-review science-journals first, HAS ACTUALLY BEEN MET for this one specific Behe Edge of Evolution example.

FL said: ...are you [Eric] able, as an evolutionist, to allow or tolerate this one brief tiny science-journal-supported Behe quotation from his EOE book, being presented within a high school biology class under the LSEA requirements?

We have been over this with Floyd before. He can't read the original literature and if he tried he couldn't understand it. That is why he quotes authorities, well at least those he thinks are authorities. But this time, as always, the "authority" has it exactly bass ackwards. Multiple mutations were required, multiple mutations eventually occurred. It might be "exponentially more difficult". but it still happened. It absolutely, positively disproves the Behe nonsense. Floyd just doesn't get it. Here is exactly what Behe demanded, a mutation by mutation account of the evolution of a novel trait. If he had any honesty or decency he would admit that the evidence showed that he was wrong. But he didn't and neither will Floyd.

Suppose I've decided (contrary to any practice I know of) to select a set of research papers directly from peer-reviewed journals to present to high school students in a science class (rather than teach from a textbook, which contains fundamental principles, and no recent research other than a sidebar reference here and there).

Let's generously suppose that I can present 10 such papers over the course of the year without adding undo burden or omitting parts of the required curriculum.

Let's unrealistically pretend that only 1000 peer-reviewed papers in the subject have been published over the time frame I'm looking at and that Behe's paper was published in that time frame.

So if I choose randomly, I have about a 1% chance of picking out Behe's paper for inclusion. But obviously I don't choose randomly, so I just want to know, what criteria am I supposed to apply that will land Behe's paper on the list of 10 (which is a lot to cover even in a graduate seminar, let alone a high school class)?

I don't think "FL wants it there." is a good reason, nor is "Behe wants it there." Nor (more to the point) is "I am the teacher and I want it in the curriculum." There needs to be a strong case for inclusion. I would also reject "It's a controversial subject for some people and Behe's paper covers the controversy" because it's not controversial within the field being taught. Behe's paper might make a great choice for a current events class studying religious controversy (assuming you could get away with teaching such a course).

Note: I have no problem with teenagers reading Behe's popular publications as long as it is not presented as science. They can read Erich von Daniken's thoughts about alien visitation too if they like. They can dream of growing up to be Big Foot chasers or discovering pieces of Noah's ark on Mt. Ararat. Dreams are nice. Just keep it out of science class.

So what set of circumstances could result in Behe's work being taught in high school biology class? I've published peer-reviewed research (not in biology). It is seen as correct and uncontroversial as far as I know. But it will never appear in any high school course (or introductory college course) because it's just not that significant. Behe's work is of dubious merit in my view, but even if I agreed with his findings, I can't imagine any reason to teach his work at the high school level.

Here is a disclaimer about Behe’s “authority” within the biological community at Lehigh University. Behe doesn’t do any research; he just writes sectarian pseudoscience books.

FL has been shown this many times; but he always doubles down and continues to bluff (i.e., lie). That is what “being a Christian” means to him; this is how he reads his bible.

I happen to know that the Christian majority doesn’t behave this way; in fact, Christians are appalled at such dishonest behavior on the part of fundamentalists who claim to speak for them. So, despite his claims, FL doesn’t speak for the Christian community.

FL said: Actually, Lenski's E. Coli results and the citrate thing (and also the similar but smaller scale E. coli work of biologist Ralph Seelke, but that's another story) is a big scientific reason why Behe said what he said (which I quoted just a few posts earlier) in The Edge of Evolution.

But if more than one is needed, the probability of getting all the right ones grows exponentially worse.

FL said: But in this one case, I didn't say anything about any science teacher presenting Behe's words about Intelligent Design or even anything about Behe's words about Irreducible Complexity. None of that ID or IC stuff. This brief snippet is ONLY about evolution--nothing else.

AND, on top of it, Dr. Behe wrote a peer-review science-journal article (yes, a mainstream science journal, The Quarterly Review of Biology), which lends scientific support to Behe's specific EOE quotation.

in another case, high-level constitutive expression on a multicopy plasmid of a citrate transporter gene, citT, which normally transports citrate in the absence of oxygen, was responsible for eliciting the phenotype (Pos et al. 1998). If the phenotype of the Lenski CitL strain is caused by the loss of the activity of a normal genetic regulatory element, such as a repressor binding site or other FCT, it will, of course, be a loss-of-FCT mutation, despite its highly adaptive effects in the presence of citrate. If the phenotype is due to one or more mutations that result in, for example, the addition of a novel genetic regulatory element, gene-duplication with sequence divergence, or the gain of a new binding site, then it will be a noteworthy gain-of-FCT mutation. The results of future work aside...

And your specific demand that Behe get published in the peer-review science-journals first, HAS ACTUALLY BEEN MET for this one specific Behe Edge of Evolution example.

...are you able, as an evolutionist, to allow or tolerate this one brief tiny science-journal-supported Behe quotation from his EOE book, being presented within a high school biology class under the LSEA requirements?

The longer an evolution experiment is run, and the larger the population of microbes it harbors, the greater the chance for mutations to appear that are rare and particularly beneficial.

eric said: ...his EOE quote is wrong and not supported by his own evidence.

mattdance18 said: Given that his own peer-reviewed work acknowledges exactly what his books on intelligent design deny, in those books, Michael Behe is simply LYING to his readers. Like all too many others, Floyd is being made a chump.

eric said:

mattdance18 said: Given that his own peer-reviewed work acknowledges exactly what his books on intelligent design deny, in those books, Michael Behe is simply LYING to his readers. Like all too many others, Floyd is being made a chump.

I'd say he's spinning rather than lying: saying true things in a way that leads his readers to an unwarranted conclusion. It's consistent with what he's done in the past. For example, the Behe paper which he discussed in Kitzmiller excluded exaptation as a possible mechanism for evolution. He then calculates a probability for 2-, 3-...N- mutational adaptations under that assumption. Now, his numbers might be correct given that assumption, but readers like FL may not notice that the model doesn't actually model reality very well, so the calculated probabilities are actually meaningless. All FL takes away from the paper is the very small probabilities, and he gets lead to the false conclusion that these say something about the limits of real world evolutionary mechanism when they don't. Same pattern here.

FL said: David M writes,

Yeah, I have a policy of not clicking any links provided by FL.

That's okay. You asked for the Big Five, and Mattdance has provided it for you. I would have provided it for you at this time, if he hadn't. However, it does not make sense for you to request another poster to provide something for you, and then when the other poster accepts your request, to refuse to click on the respondent's link which specifically contains the requested provision. Sheesh. For the sake of rationality, perhaps you'll consider a policy revision? FL

FL said: On top of it, Dr. Behe wrote a peer-review science-journal article (yes, a mainstream science journal, The Quarterly Review of Biology), which lends scientific support to Behe's specific EOE quotation.

mattdance18 said: You should really learn how to make an argument that doesn't reduce to "x says y, therefore y."

There is much evidence from these studies (P. falciparum, HIV, E.Coli, chloroquine resistance, etc) that, in their incoherent flailing for short-term advantage, Darwinian processes can easily break molecular machinery. There is no evidence that Darwinian processes can take the multiple, coherent steps needed to build new molecular machinery, the kind os machinery that fills the cell. – biochemist Dr. Michael Behe, The Edge of Evolution, pp 162-163.

I think the results fit a lot more easily into the viewpoint of The Edge of Evolution. One of the major points of the book was that if only one mutation is needed to confer some ability, then Darwinian evolution has little problem finding it. But if more than one is needed, the probability of getting all the right ones grows exponentially worse. – Michael Behe (blog), from 2008, re-printed by Anika Smith at ENV.

The ability to metabolize citrate required TWO, count ‘em TWO mutations.

(Eric) That article lends no support at all to the “impossible” claim. You obviously didn’t read it, or you’d know that.

(Mattdance) Given that his own peer-reviewed work acknowledges exactly what his books on intelligent design deny, in those books, Michael Behe is simply LYING to his readers.

Still, the important question to ask is, what exactly has this venerable project (Lenski's) shown us about evolution? The study has addressed some narrow points of peculiar interest to evolutionary population geneticists, but for proponents of intelligent design the bottom line is that the great majority of even beneficial mutations have turned out to be due to the breaking, degrading, or minor tweaking of pre-existing genes or regulatory regions (Behe 2010). There have been no mutations or series of mutations identified that appear to be on their way to constructing elegant new molecular machinery of the kind that fills every cell. -- Michael Behe, "Lenski's Long-Term Evolution Experiment" http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/11/richard_lenskis079401.html

Why are you incapable of making any arguments on your own, FL? Why are you incapable of doing anything other than quoting "authorities"?

And FL still can’t escape the appeal to authority! “See, he’s totally a legit authority; he wrote a legit paper once!”

FL said: However, the one fact remains the same, even if you don't support the LSEA (which is not going away anyway, whether one supports or opposes it):

There is much evidence from these studies (P. falciparum, HIV, E.Coli, chloroquine resistance, etc) that, in their incoherent flailing for short-term advantage, Darwinian processes can easily break molecular machinery. There is no evidence that Darwinian processes can take the multiple, coherent steps needed to build new molecular machinery, the kind os machinery that fills the cell. – biochemist Dr. Michael Behe, The Edge of Evolution, pp 162-163.

That was 2007. Then, in 2008, Behe said again (concerning Lenski's citrate business):

I think the results fit a lot more easily into the viewpoint of The Edge of Evolution. One of the major points of the book was that if only one mutation is needed to confer some ability, then Darwinian evolution has little problem finding it. But if more than one is needed, the probability of getting all the right ones grows exponentially worse. – Michael Behe (blog), from 2008, re-printed by Anika Smith at ENV.

So Behe's position on Lenski's research (both pre-citrate and post-citrate) is clear. It's the same position. It's the same fact. It's what you are reading in EITHER quotation.

Notice that Behe does NOT use the word "impossible" or the phrase "completely impossible." That's not his claim. But he does make the specific statements "no evidence that Darwinian processes can take the multiple, coherent steps needed to build new molecular machinery, the kind of machinery that fills the cell" and "probability of getting all the right ones grows exponentially worse." And the evidence for those statements? Lenski's E.Coli research. Mattdance said,

The ability to metabolize citrate required TWO, count ‘em TWO mutations.

But that's precisely the problem, Mattdance. "TWO, count 'em, TWO mutations. after all that massive effort and work. Just two. Not enough to finish the dance, dude.

FL said: Meanwhile, David M. says:

And FL still can’t escape the appeal to authority! “See, he’s totally a legit authority; he wrote a legit paper once!”

Well, let's see now. A guy sincerely complains that he needs to see a supporting peer-review science-journal article, or he won't accept that a tiny snip about the limits of evolution, (written by a current biochemisty professor), is suitable for high school biology class. Oh gee willikers, what will be my next move under those specific circumstances? Wait wait, I know: **I'll just go ahead and supply the complainant's request for a supporting peer-review science-journal article that ties in and supports the previous tiny snip.**

FL said: Meanwhile, David M. says:

And FL still can’t escape the appeal to authority! “See, he’s totally a legit authority; he wrote a legit paper once!”

Well, let's see now. A guy sincerely complains that he needs to see a supporting peer-review science-journal article, or he won't accept that a tiny snip about the limits of evolution, (written by a current biochemisty professor), is suitable for high school biology class.

phhht said:

FL said: Meanwhile, David M. says:

And FL still can’t escape the appeal to authority! “See, he’s totally a legit authority; he wrote a legit paper once!”

Well, let's see now. A guy sincerely complains that he needs to see a supporting peer-review science-journal article, or he won't accept that a tiny snip about the limits of evolution, (written by a current biochemisty professor), is suitable for high school biology class.

It's not suitable because it's false, Flawd.

Told you he wouldn't admit he was wrong. How predictable.

FL said: Meanwhile, Eric says (I apologize this is just one part of Eric's larger post),

I’m into science. That’s why I think Behe should actually do some, and publish the results in peer reviewed journals, and have his ID ideas confirmed by mainstream scientists, BEFORE his ideas go before High Schoolers.

But in this one case, I didn't say anything about any science teacher presenting Behe's words about Intelligent Design or even anything about Behe's words about Irreducible Complexity. None of that ID or IC stuff. This brief snippet is ONLY about evolution--nothing else.

There is much evidence from these studies (P. falciparum, HIV, E.Coli, chloroquine resistance, etc) that, in their incoherent flailing for short-term advantage, Darwinian processes can easily break molecular machinery. There is no evidence that Darwinian processes can take the multiple, coherent steps needed to build new molecular machinery, the kind os machinery that fills the cell. – biochemist Dr. Michael Behe, The Edge of Evolution, pp 162-163.

AND, on top of it, Dr. Behe wrote a peer-review science-journal article (yes, a mainstream science journal, The Quarterly Review of Biology), which lends scientific support to Behe's specific EOE quotation. http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/pdf/Behe/QRB_paper.pdf **** Again, Behe's quotation totally leaves out any mention or suggestion of ID or IC. And your specific demand that Behe get published in the peer-review science-journals first, HAS ACTUALLY BEEN MET for this one specific Behe Edge of Evolution example. (Which is another reason why I chose this one to be my LSEA example to ask you about.) So therefore... If you are into science as you say you are, if you are into science education as long as there's no science-teacher endorsing of "religious beliefs" (nor creationism or ID or IC or YEC or OEC or TE or any religious texts)... ...are you able, as an evolutionist, to allow or tolerate this one brief tiny science-journal-supported Behe quotation from his EOE book, being presented within a high school biology class under the LSEA requirements? Are you now able to permit it? FL

FL said: But he does make the specific statements "no evidence that Darwinian processes can take the multiple, coherent steps needed to build new molecular machinery, the kind of machinery that fills the cell" and "probability of getting all the right ones grows exponentially worse."

Crill et al. (2000) studied the adaptation of X174 to Eschericia and Salmonella hosts. Over 11 days of selection on a host, up to 28 substitutions, as well as a 2-base insertion and 27-base deletion, were observed in all genes except one. The authors determined that nonsynonymous nucleotide substitutions at 5 sites in the major capsid protein gene F affected host preference.

Evolution can only dance a two-step,

[FL quoting Behe] for proponents of intelligent design the bottom line is that the great majority of even beneficial mutations have turned out to be due to the breaking, degrading, or minor tweaking of pre-existing genes or regulatory regions (Behe 2010). There have been no mutations or series of mutations identified that appear to be on their way to constructing elegant new molecular machinery of the kind that fills every cell.

I don't expect any of you to agree with either Behe's journal article or the EOE quotation, by the way.

Behe's blubberings about 'exponentially worse probabilities' would only be valid if anyone were slow-witted enough to 'think' that ALL NEEDED MUTATIONS HAD TO OCCUR AT THE SAME TIME.

ie, the standard creationut 'model' of everything falling together all at once purely by chance.

If 5 mutations are required, and the odds of one mutation is 1 in 10^9, then getting all five AT THE SAME TIME would indeed be p^5 (in this case, 1 in 10^45).

But if each mutation is useful (or even neutral) on its own, one can fix before the next one arises. Meaning the odds do not go exponential.

And whether a mutation is beneficial, neutral, or deleterious is context dependent. And the presence of one mutation can alter whether a later mutation is beneficial, neutral or deleterious (Mutation A alone may be neutral, mutation B alone elsewhere may be slightly deleterious, but A and B together may be beneficial).

Behe's 'model' of evolution is 'complex systems MUST fall together all at once, or they are useless !!!1!!1!1!!1!!'; the REALITY is that complex systems can have parts added, subtracted or modified over time. And even the system's function can change.

They have histories - something IDiots must ignore in order to generate those ridiculously inflated numbers they attempt to 'disprove' evolution with.

Given the fact that 'irreducibly complex' systems can evolve, finding one would not invalidate evolution. Muller figured that out - in 1923 ! (he called it 'interlocking complexity')

Given that it is far, far, FAR easier to modify a sequence that is already present than to generate one from nothing, sane and rational people that understand evolution and biology
EXPECT most of evolution to be from modification of already present sequences. Claiming that 'modifications don't count !1!!!!' is a pathetic dodge.

But it is one of the few that the creatorists have to protect their willful ignorance with ...

PA Poland said: Behe's blubberings about 'exponentially worse probabilities' would only be valid if anyone were slow-witted enough to 'think' that ALL NEEDED MUTATIONS HAD TO OCCUR AT THE SAME TIME. ie, the standard creationut 'model' of everything falling together all at once purely by chance. If 5 mutations are required, and the odds of one mutation is 1 in 10^9, then getting all five AT THE SAME TIME would indeed be p^5 (in this case, 1 in 10^45). But if each mutation is useful (or even neutral) on its own, one can fix before the next one arises. Meaning the odds do not go exponential.

FL said: So, lots of interesting comments, lots of interesting opposition. Par for the Panda course.

However, the one fact remains the same, even if you don't support the LSEA (which is not going away anyway, whether one supports or opposes it):

There is much evidence from these studies (P. falciparum, HIV, E.Coli, chloroquine resistance, etc) that, in their incoherent flailing for short-term advantage, Darwinian processes can easily break molecular machinery. There is no evidence that Darwinian processes can take the multiple, coherent steps needed to build new molecular machinery, the kind os machinery that fills the cell. – biochemist Dr. Michael Behe, The Edge of Evolution, pp 162-163.

That was 2007. Then, in 2008, Behe said again (concerning Lenski's citrate business):

I think the results fit a lot more easily into the viewpoint of The Edge of Evolution. One of the major points of the book was that if only one mutation is needed to confer some ability, then Darwinian evolution has little problem finding it. But if more than one is needed, the probability of getting all the right ones grows exponentially worse. – Michael Behe (blog), from 2008, re-printed by Anika Smith at ENV.

So Behe's position on Lenski's research (both pre-citrate and post-citrate) is clear. It's the same position. It's the same fact. It's what you are reading in EITHER quotation.

Notice that Behe does NOT use the word "impossible" or the phrase "completely impossible." That's not his claim. But he does make the specific statements "no evidence that Darwinian processes can take the multiple, coherent steps needed to build new molecular machinery, the kind of machinery that fills the cell" and "probability of getting all the right ones grows exponentially worse."

And the evidence for those statements? Lenski's E.Coli research.

Mattdance said,

The ability to metabolize citrate required TWO, count ‘em TWO mutations.

But that's precisely the problem, Mattdance. "TWO, count 'em, TWO mutations. after all that massive effort and work. Just two. Not enough to finish the dance, dude. Evolution can only dance a two-step, but a lotta more steps are needed to "build new molecular machinery, the kind of machinery that fills the cell." And that is still scientific fact, at this time.

But...there was a complaint made that Behe's 2010 peer-review science-journal article didn't fit the EOE quotation that was given.

(Eric) That article lends no support at all to the “impossible” claim. You obviously didn’t read it, or you’d know that.

(Mattdance) Given that his own peer-reviewed work acknowledges exactly what his books on intelligent design deny, in those books, Michael Behe is simply LYING to his readers.

Such complaints, of course, are simply false. Worthless, really.

But let's let Behe explain it in his own words.

Still, the important question to ask is, what exactly has this venerable project (Lenski's) shown us about evolution? The study has addressed some narrow points of peculiar interest to evolutionary population geneticists, but for proponents of intelligent design the bottom line is that the great majority of even beneficial mutations have turned out to be due to the breaking, degrading, or minor tweaking of pre-existing genes or regulatory regions (Behe 2010). There have been no mutations or series of mutations identified that appear to be on their way to constructing elegant new molecular machinery of the kind that fills every cell. -- Michael Behe, "Lenski's Long-Term Evolution Experiment" http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/11/richard_lenskis079401.html

So, do you see any familiar words from Behe's last paragraph there? Hmm? Yes? Maybe?

Also, within that snippet, do you see any words or number (in parentheses) that might maybe possibly refer to some peer-review journal article or something like it maybe? Hmm? Si? Oui?

The given peer-review article DIRECTLY agrees with, ties in with, and supports the given EOE quotation. See it?

I don't expect any of you to agree with either Behe's journal article or the EOE quotation, by the way. That's never going to happen.

You say that Behe is "spinning" or "lying", and of course those accusations themselves sound like spinning or lying to me.

But your specific complaint, is now refuted. Done. Lenski's work shows the limits, not the potentials, of how far evolution can go. Evolution is a flop, as far as your cells are concerned. Period.

Well that's all you can expect from Floyd. Quote mining, misquoting and lying about quotes from supposed authorities. He doesn't have any evidence, never did, never will. He wouldn't know evidence if it smacked him in the face, which it has done repeatedly, despite his best efforts to remain ignorant. Don't expect him to answer your questions and don't expect him to ever admit he is wrong. He is incapable of discussing scientific issues because he doesn't understand them.

mattdance18 said: Talk about a flop. I look forward to your specific discussions of each of the dozen points I've raised. Regards.

DS said: Well that's all you can expect from Floyd. ... Don't expect him to answer your questions and don't expect him to ever admit he is wrong.

Mike Elzinga said: It’s not going to happen....

And the best -- apparently the only -- authority the turd can come up with is one Michael Behe, who thinks, and has stated publicly, that biblical-literalist six-day young-Earth creationism is utterly childish and silly (or words to that effect).

mattdance18 said: I'm not optimistic. Despite the numbering, I bet he skips more than half of them.

PA Poland said: Behe's blubberings about 'exponentially worse probabilities' would only be valid if anyone were slow-witted enough to 'think' that ALL NEEDED MUTATIONS HAD TO OCCUR AT THE SAME TIME. ie, the standard creationut 'model' of everything falling together all at once purely by chance. If 5 mutations are required, and the odds of one mutation is 1 in 10^9, then getting all five AT THE SAME TIME would indeed be p^5 (in this case, 1 in 10^45). But if each mutation is useful (or even neutral) on its own, one can fix before the next one arises. Meaning the odds do not go exponential. And whether a mutation is beneficial, neutral, or deleterious is context dependent. And the presence of one mutation can alter whether a later mutation is beneficial, neutral or deleterious (Mutation A alone may be neutral, mutation B alone elsewhere may be slightly deleterious, but A and B together may be beneficial). Behe's 'model' of evolution is 'complex systems MUST fall together all at once, or they are useless !!!1!!1!1!!1!!'; the REALITY is that complex systems can have parts added, subtracted or modified over time. And even the system's function can change. They have histories - something IDiots must ignore in order to generate those ridiculously inflated numbers they attempt to 'disprove' evolution with. Given the fact that 'irreducibly complex' systems can evolve, finding one would not invalidate evolution. Muller figured that out - in 1923 ! (he called it 'interlocking complexity') Given that it is far, far, FAR easier to modify a sequence that is already present than to generate one from nothing, sane and rational people that understand evolution and biology EXPECT most of evolution to be from modification of already present sequences. Claiming that 'modifications don't count !1!!!!' is a pathetic dodge. But it is one of the few that the creatorists have to protect their willful ignorance with ...

mattdance18 said: ... Floyd, I'm going to spell this out for you straightforwardly, numbering and boldfacing a dozen or so points that I would like you to address rather than dodge in any response you might offer. It will break up the paragraph structure, but it will also make very clear what are the underlying issues. So here goes. ... I look forward to your specific discussions of each of the dozen points I've raised.

mattdance18 said: Hey, Floyd!

mattdance18 said: ... Floyd, I'm going to spell this out for you straightforwardly, numbering and boldfacing a dozen or so points that I would like you to address rather than dodge in any response you might offer. It will break up the paragraph structure, but it will also make very clear what are the underlying issues. So here goes. ... I look forward to your specific discussions of each of the dozen points I've raised.

0 for 12 so far. Not even an attempt over the last five days. Cat got your tongue? Or are you too busy reading up on the Bible's ambiguity with regards to slavery?