Funny, I thought evolutionists already had a model. Oh well, no matter.
On this subject, Ross writes:
The public debate about teaching intelligent design has exposed widespread confusion both inside and outside the church about how the scientific enterprise operates. One of the most frequent complaints scientists make about the Intelligent Design movement is that their brand of intelligent design is not testable, falsifiable, or predictive. This brand lacks these features, scientists explain, because there is no model explaining the nature of the intelligent design. The problem with these complaints is that the general public has little comprehension of what really makes up a scientific model or why it is so important for a model to be testable, falsifiable, and predictive.He is quite correct that most people have little idea how science works and even less of an idea why some sets of knowledge they learn in school are so well understood while others are not. It is also notable that he did not defend the ID perspective, likely because he also knows it is unfalsifiable.
Then the wheels fall of the wagon:
Scientists will retain a failed model, however, if there is no superior model to take its place. This is why it’s typically fruitless for Christians to point out all the flaws and failures in the evolutionists’ explanation for the origin and history of life. Most evolutionists are already aware of the shortcomings in their model. Nevertheless, they will not abandon the model until they first see a superior model to take its place.BANG! BANG! BANG! I'm sorry. I was just banging my head against the desk. I'm back now. How could someone so thoughtful and well-read be so misinformed about evolution? What are the shortcomings of the model? As a hermeneutic, there are few theories with better explanatory power. How did Neil Shubin know to look for the fishapod in Devonian shallow sea deposits? How do you explain the fact that he actually found exactly what he expected to find? How do researchers like Ross (who is a progressive creationist) explain the fact that over 90% of the species in the world's history have gone extinct? Isn't that wasteful? Why would God create, in successive order, descendent species with minor changes, some to run concurrently with their predecessor, until summarily removing one of them from the landscape? Why would he do this time and time again? To be sure, the questions raised above have the ring of "argument from personal incredulity" except that we have a working model to explain these things—and it is a very good working model. Theodosius Dobzhansky was right: "Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution." Ross' response is disappointing.
I don't take anyone's objections to common descent seriously unless they explain some other history that could account for the nested hierarchy of pseduogene mutations and ERV viral insertions in the genome of mammals. Common descent explains it exactly. Common design, common designer completely misunderstands the evidence completely.
ReplyDeleteI also want an explanation of homoeobox genes and the effects that they have on different organisms. Common descent also explains this nicely. Also as far as ERVs are concerned, you don't even have to look that far. What are the odds that humans and apes share exactly the same pseudogene for vitamin C production? What are the odds that, while apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes and humans have 23, humans just happen to have what looks exactly like a fused chromosome corresponding to the extra pair in higher apes? Why would an intelligent designer design by fiat, an animal with either of those characteristics?
ReplyDeleteI agree with your two points, especially the vitamin C pseudogene, especially given that it is rendered a pseudogene by the same 8 base pair substitution in all the primates.
ReplyDeleteYet, I find ERVs even more convincing, because they are a viral insertion. You might argue the vitamin C pseudogene is actually something else, or by design turned off by the same mechanism in primates. A viral insertion though wasn't there to begin with, so there just isn't any other explanation when they are shared in homologous places across species forming a nested hierarchy pattern then common descent. The only thing you have left is to assert they are not viral insertions at all, something Answers in Genesis is hard at work trying to do. This is such a nail in the coffin I don't take any objection to common descent seriously that doesn't address this point.
And yet it isn't one piece of evidence that confirms common descent. It is the converging lines of evidence across multiple fields that draw the same phyogenetic tree within statistical certainty, namely fossils, comparative morphology, biogeography, molecular genetics (especially pseduogenes and ERVs). I think it is this last point that turned Behe, in a interview I read with him recently a creationist journalist tried to understand why he accepted common descent and he remarked there is no other explanation for shared genetic errors.
Thanks so much for this info on Hugh Ross. An elder asked me if had read him, since I believe in an old earth. I told that I hadn't read anything of him, but had heard of him. At first I thought he too might be a theistic evolutionist, but doubted it. Your post clarified the very thing I needed info on. BTW, I like what I see. I assume you're familiar with Denis Alexander's work. I find him to be the best resource so far defending evolutionary biology and Christian orthodoxy. I look forward to reading more of your work. Cheers!
ReplyDeleteThank you for the kind words. I am familiar with Denis Alexander but, sadly, have not had a chance to read any of his work. He is on my list of authors to pick up. One of these days I am going to compile a list of institutes and organizations that are devoted to examining the cross-section of faith and science in an intellectually honest way. The Faraday Institute will be on that list, as will Reasons to Believe, although Dr. Ross needs to work on his understanding of evolution.
ReplyDeleteJim, before you slander a person like Dr. Ross, you need to do some more homework on what he actually believes.
ReplyDeleteGreg, how did I slander him? I simply reacted to what he said about evolution. Within the confines of the fact that every scientific theory has gaps, evolution is a pretty dang good one and Ross persistently fails to see that, despite the evidence.
ReplyDelete"How do researchers like Ross (who is a progressive creationist) explain the fact that over 90% of the species in the world's history have gone extinct?" How could you conclude that over ninety percent of species have gone extinct when you do not know how many there have been?
ReplyDelete"Why would God create, in successive order, descendent species with minor changes, some to run concurrently with their predecessor, until summarily removing one of them from the landscape?" This seems like a rhetorical question intended to imply that God would not do so. If that is the case, then on what grounds would anyone presume him/herself equipped to speak to what an infinite Creator would or would not do? No earthbound being is in a position to even conceive of the possible motivations thereof.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I was wondering whether or not the middle skull on your background image is that of a neanderthal. If so, and given that you are an evolutionary biologist, I would assume you are aware of the similarities between it and the skulls of Australian Aboriginal persons and native Africans, while the skull ordinarily used for comparison between neanderthal and "modern" man seems always to be of a more European shape.
ReplyDeleteThe middle skull is, indeed, the Amud Neandertal. The Australian aborigines and native Africans tend to have some regional traits, and none has quite the facial or skull shape of the Neandertals, even those from SW Asia.
ReplyDeleteWhy is the same coding for Vitamin C production (et al) an argument for common ancestry more than common design? Were you a creationist until such revelations? And how does such an observation (or the "Neanderthal skull") support increased complexity rather than parsing of pre-existing coding?
ReplyDeleteWhy would God intentionally cripple our ability to make vitamin C and then just happen to randomly cripple the animals that appear, genetically, to be the most related to us?
ReplyDeleteHugh Ross is smarter than you.
ReplyDeleteAnd why, exactly, is he smarter than me?
ReplyDeleteAnd my dad can beat your dad up. :)
ReplyDeleteBut seriously, Ross is no doubt better than me (and maybe even Jim) at physics and astronomy. He's just never written anything that makes sense about biology.
Ross is actually a top-flight astronomer and that is what is so maddening about his foray into biology. For someone who makes such good cases in his field, to make such inane statements in biology is very disappointing.
ReplyDelete