Austin Fischer: Innocence, Christian Faith and Evolutionary Biology

[Patrick]

@pnelson

QED. Wasn’t true for Dana, wasn’t true for Wallace. Heck, wasn’t true for Darwin.

And it wasn’t true for Newton and Copernicus. So what. Why does it matter what Wallace knew or didn’t know? We live in 2019 where our scientific knowledge of the universe is much advanced and advancing faster and faster. We now live in a society where information about anything and everything is at our fingertips. Think about this: An average physics student know more information about the Big Bang/relativity/QM at her fingertips than Einstein did. And a high school biology textbook has more information on evolution than Darwin could even image.

[John_Harshman]

@pnelson

The bookshelves in my study are well-populated with biology volumes using theology for empirical conclusions.

Not the same thing at all, is it? The question is how theism can add explanatory content to a hypothesis. “God wouldn’t have done it that way” is exceedingly rare in evolutionary theory and biology, though one imagines you could find a few examples. But God seldom appears in the literature at all.

Also, could I ask you not to direct me to a lecture of an hour and a half without specifying the particular point you want to make and where in that lecture to find it?

[pnelson (Paul A Nelson)]

@John_Harshman

“God wouldn’t have done it that way” is exceedingly rare in evolutionary theory and biology, though one imagines you could find a few examples. But God seldom appears in the literature at all.

He doesn’t have to, because His role (as an optimal designer, against which observed systems are assessed for optimality or suboptimality as evidential pointers) is implicit. Widely shared assumptions within a discipline normally become entirely tacit, until a pest like me points them out. But a tacit assumption doing work is an active assumption nonetheless.

Sorry, I should have given you a time mark for Masel’s relevant points. Skip to about 14:50 and following.

[T_aquaticus]

@pnelson

He doesn’t have to, because His role (as an optimal designer, against which observed systems are assessed for optimality or suboptimality as evidential pointers) is implicit. Widely shared assumptions within a discipline normally become entirely tacit, until a pest like me points them out. But a tacit assumption doing work is an active assumption nonetheless.

From the very start the main argument against design and for common descent is the pattern of characteristics among species. The following quote is a bit long, but it is a good one. It is from George Romanes in 1882:

Thus, even if we confine our attention to a single structure, how wonderful are the modifications which it is seen to undergo, although never losing its typical character! How are we to explain this? By design manifested in special creation, or by descent with adaptive modification? If it is said by design manifested in special creation, we must suppose that the Deity formed an archetypal plan of certain structures, and that He determined to adhere to this plan through all the modifications which those structures exhibit. Now the difficulties in the way of this supposition are prodigious, if not quite insurmountable. In the first place, why is it that some structures are selected as typical and not others? Why should the vertebral skeleton, for instance, be tortured into every conceivable variety of modification in order to make it serviceable for as great a variety of functions; while another structure, such as the eye, is made in different sub-kingdoms on fundamentally different plans, notwithstanding that it has throughout to perform the same function? Will any one have the hardihood to assert that in the case of the skeleton the Deity has endeavoured to show His ingenuity by the manifold functions to which He has made the same structure subservient; while in the case of the eye He has endeavoured to show his resources by the manifold structures which He has to subserve the same function? If so, it appears to me a most unfortunate circumstance, that throughout both the vegetable and animal kingdoms, all cases which can be pointed to as showing ingenious adaptation of the same typical structure to the performance of widely different functions, are cases which come within the limits of the same natural group of plants and animals, and therefore admit of being equally well explained by descent from a common ancestry; while all cases of widely different structures performing the same function are to be found in different groups of plants or animals, and are therefore suggestive of independent variations arising in the different lines of hereditary descent.
The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Scientific Evidences of Organic Evolution, by George J. Romanes, M.A., LL.D., F.R.S.

[John_Harshman]

@pnelson

He doesn’t have to, because His role (as an optimal designer, against which observed systems are assessed for optimality or suboptimality as evidential pointers) is implicit.

I deny that it is. If one has a standard of optimality against which some system is tested, God isn’t necessary to that standard. Optimality can be perfectly empirical.

@pnelson

Skip to about 14:50 and following.

Following how far? And what point should I expect to be made?

[Timothy_Horton]

@Mercer

Why call one’s self an “ID theorist” then?

Or why call it “ID Theory” at all when ID right now is nothing more than religiously motivated speculation? It doesn’t offer even a testable hypothesis let alone a scientific theory.

[John_Harshman]

@T_aquaticus

the main argument against design and for common descent

Let’s not conflate design with separate creation. The argument is against separate creation, but directed evolution is a form of design.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@John_Harshman

the main argument against design and for common descent

Let’s not conflate design with separate creation. The argument is against separate creation, but directed evolution is a form of design.

Could not agree more @John_Harshman. @gbrooks9 would be very happy to see this too .

Though, as @T_aquaticus is right to point out, it is fairly common for IDists themselves to conflate the two.

[T_aquaticus]

@John_Harshman

Let’s not conflate design with separate creation. The argument is against separate creation, but directed evolution is a form of design.

The same critique could still apply. Evolution could be guided in such a way that the same adaptation will appear in distantly related lineages. Also, many ID supporters are arguing for separate creation, so it is difficult to separate the two.

[John_Harshman]

@swamidass

it is fairly common for IDists themselves to conflate the two

It’s nearly universal. I’ve spent untold myriads of electrons trying to convince Bill and Sal Cordova of that simple difference.

[Timothy_Horton]

@pnelson

So some caution is well-deserved among our rebel band.

Maybe if ID-Creationists tried playing by the same rules everyone else in science follows instead of the constant end-runs around proper vetting and the constant appeals to the lay public ID-Creationists wouldn’t be viewed in such a negative light by the mainstream science community.

You guys made your own bed. Don’t whine now when you have to sleep in it.

[John_Harshman]

@T_aquaticus

Evolution could be guided in such a way that the same adaptation will appear in distantly related lineages.

Could be, but it would require more elaborate tweaking than working with what’s there.

@T_aquaticus

it is difficult to separate the two

For them, apparently, but that doesn’t mean it has to be for you.

[John_Harshman]

@pnelson

So some caution is well-deserved among our rebel band.

Much is well deserved. I find the flat-earth test instructive. Consider how it would be reasonable for participants at a geographer’s conference to react to the presence of a flat-earther.

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@swamidass

Though, as @T_aquaticus is right to point out, it is fairly common for IDists themselves to conflate the two.

Absolutely! It is important to steer discussions away from I.D… to Creation itself.

ID will ALWAYS POLARIZE. It is surprising to see how easily even Scientists can fall to the dead end opinion that Science can detect God’s work or design!!!

God as “designer by means of Creation” is a UNIFYING theme for all Christians.

[Agauger (Ann Gauger)]

@John_Harshman @swamidass

@swamidass

Though, as @T_aquaticus is right to point out, it is fairly common for IDists themselves to conflate the two.

Oh good. Another taxonomy. IDers who are lumpers or splitters, and evolutionary biologists who lump or split the lumpers or splitters. Is it an infinitely ramifying pattern? Probably. There are as many viewpoints on this topic of origins as there are people who care about it.

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@Agauger

it is fairly common for IDists themselves to conflate the two.

I dont know any ID proponent who doesnt automatically equate the two positions!

Do you, @Agauger ?

I think we would all benefit if we knew of at least one or teo prominent exemplars!

[John_Harshman]

@Agauger

IDers who are lumpers or splitters, and evolutionary biologists who lump or split the lumpers or splitters.

I think you have mistaken the point. Taxonomic lumping and splitting is a matter of taste. This particular lumping is a matter of gross misunderstanding.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@gbrooks9

it is fairly common for IDists themselves to conflate the two.

I dont know any ID proponent who doesnt automatically equate the two positions!

I do not think Behe or @Agauger equate the two.

[Agauger (Ann Gauger)]

@Mercer

If their prevalence is representative of the prevalence of function in sequence space, if we experimentally release them from that constraint by adding random sequence on each end, at the end of several selection cycles we should observe that enzymatic activities are significantly greater than those of the parent catalytic antibodies that were selected as antibodies.

If their prevalence is not representative of the prevalence of function in sequence space (for virtually any reason, including those offered by @Agauger and @bjmiller), if we experimentally release them from that constraint by adding random sequence on each end, at the end of several selection cycles we should observe that enzymatic activities are the same or lower than those of the parent catalytic antibodies that were selected as antibodies.

@Mercer
If you have the means to do it, why not? I think the odds are against you even if i am wrong. We already discussed how the presence of a tag can influence activity, even when a tag is well characterized structurally and known to function in other protein contexts. You are talking about adding random sequence (how much?) to both ends. The length of sequence you add may be important. The longer it is, the greater the chance of interference as well as aid.

Question: Do you (or anyone ) know what proportion of random peptides 50 aa long are soluble? 100%? random proteins 100 aa long? That might influence your odds.