Bill Cole's Case For Design

I don’t take mutations as the sole vehicle of change.

As I see it, a lot the change comes during the development processes, which I take to be adaptive and intelligent.

It’s interesting that the same argument could be made about how computer programmes don’t need FI… Because you can’t measure it quantitatively. Why should anyone be satisfied with such a state of affairs?
Besides, there can be inductive methods for concluding whether FI is involved… when biologists have no problem using inductive methods to conclude selection is on play… why not for FI? Why not say there has been an increase in FI from one form to another?

The issue is simple. We have a few mechanisms for change such as mutation,gene duplication etc and a process called natural selection which guides this change towards improved “fitness”.
I don’t think anyone is arguing that the above don’t happen or don’t cause some ammount of fine tuning/adaptation in organisms. The problem is with the claim that “all biodiversity” is a result of these known processes.
The fact is that science is nowhere close enough to explaining “evolution” to make such a staggering claim. It would be really appreciated if everyone can agree on the truth-
I.e there are good explanations for some of the changes.
Only speculation with very little evidence exists for many if not most of the changes that is shown by the biodiversity in nature.
Then finally there is the problem of achieving “design” in life without an intelligence. How does the extremely complex assembly we see in life in all its diversity happen …
You must realise this is a staggering claim being made by scientists here… and there is limited evidence when we take the scale of the claim into consideration.

1 Like

Who here has claimed this? It is totally false. We do not know all the processes necessary. This is why we do evolutionary science, to discover more processes and understand where they are important.

Doesn’t sound that way when reading the thread.Let me show you an example.Micheal made the below statement… and got an answer from Aquaticus. I am pasting both.

Is a just so story the best response when someone is questioning whether selection can achieve the change required ?
A simple we don’t know all of it yet would gain far more trust than natural selection fits all kind of answer.
@colewd started out with the below comment.

I made the comments I made from all this.

Scientists need to learn to use the words “I don’t know” more often when talking about the bigger picture.

2 Likes

I agree with @Ashwin_s here as well. It really seems that everything has been figured out. It is just a matter of time before a spot becomes and eyeball. Nevermind the hundreds of associated physiological aspects that must be incorporated into the process simultaneously. It is such hubris that I don’t know how to respond. I had one queued up for hours, but just kept deleting it.

It is honest to state that there is much evidence for descent, plus mutation, plus genetic drift, plus whatever else you wish to rely upon to have the explanatory power for some situations. No one disagrees. But that the point where that power or ability is conferred upon every other aspect of life, and we’re to accept it without discussion, the dialog stops being a dialog. Especially a scientific one. This is a belief system.

It, honestly, feels disingenuous to have a discussion board when people are not going to be honest. I came in here with a desire to learn, leaving preconceived notions at the door. I admitted that I knew very little about the subject matter, but I’ve been trying to read and follow everything that everyone recommends. But there are very few, real conversations that take place. People (I’m being honest here) will say things in defense of their position that that they would not say otherwise. I don’t want to call anyone out, but I see it time and again.

To admit that one does not have all of the answers leaves room for a discussion. To have all of them shows that there is no need.

My issue is not with @T_aquaticus who is presenting quite a bit of knowledge that would really benefit from understanding. We can and will start a thread on eye evolution to go into this deeper, but he is not presenting a “just so story.” Rather he is explaining why the jump is not nearly as large as you think.

Instead of making a “just so” dismissal, put forward a more constructive way of understanding God’s work alongside this. You are are not nearly as backed into a corner as you feel. Look, for example, how the exchange on another thread is playing out:

This argument is just much stronger than arguing they way you guys have been going about it. Science is not going to tell us God designed things, but it certainly does not give strong evidence that He didn’t. Science is silent about God.

Any one who says different either misunderstands God or science, or both.

… the cause is God-Guided manipulation… that is undetectable from a scientific view…

1 Like

@Ashwin_s … I think we were just the subject of a “divide and conquer”… :slight_smile:

@swamidass

I understand what you are saying here and will not kick against the goad. I may not have completely understood the previous conversation (nor may I ever). I also do not wish to put words into Ashwin’s mouth… That said, I was not having a “God” conversation. I didn’t think that Ashwin was either. Personally, what I found to be incredible and exasperating (and still do) is the way that something simple and observable (a mutation that resulted in a change) could be so casually applied to the creation of an eye, for instance, by natural causes.

I cannot say that it didn’t happen, because I don’t know enough about the subject, but to step from a light sensing spot, to a flatworm, to an eye as though one should not be in awe of the process whether it happened on its own or was caused, does not make for good conversation. The impression I got was that such a progression was likely, easy, obvious, expected, etc. This is counterintuitive by any cause!

I can accept, as you say, that science will not say that God created the eye. But one should not avoid a sense of awe at the unlikelihood that the process occurred at all, however it did. If God made a seven pound meat computer that outperforms any model built today, that’s amazing. If that same meat computer evolved on its own from elements found on the ground, that’s even more amazing. This is the kind of wonder that should be expressed over such an unlikely occurrence. If the ID folks get excited about that kind of wonder, so be it. Maybe they should be criticized for getting excited? Why shouldn’t someone be amazed at such an event?!

That’s what I found to be frustrating about the conversation. That’s where I was going with my rant (apologies for that), but we should all appreciate a good miracle (statistically unlikely event) or mystery (as yet unexplained event) when we see it, and not act as though it does not exist for fear of weakening our positions.

Again, apologies if I have unfairly conferred these criticisms on anyone or their words.

I agree. It is deeply counter intuitive, like most things in science. Give me some time, I’ll start a thread on the eye to explain more. I have a great deal of sympathy to your position. I am not telling you to sit down and shut up. I’m just asking you to be patient.

I agree. That is the right. We should be in awe. I am. So are most scientists. That is the correct response no matter how God did it.

We can do this, and we should. However to make the claim in science, we must subject that intuition to scientific rigor. If that is not what we want, just make the claim outside of science, stating the facts as you have. Even if it did arise by largely or even exclusively natural processes, we are facing a miraculous feature of the world.

1 Like

Thanks so much for your patient explanation and understanding. I appreciate it.

This is the point that I was trying to make. However it happened, let the chips fall. The truth is the truth. But don’t act as though the development of something incredibly complex is not utterly amazing, whatever the cause. That depreciates the study, the results, and the conversation. Again, thanks.

1 Like

If that is what you are aiming for, you have no dispute with me. Even most scientists will agree. We are usually in awe and wonder of these things. Nothing in evolution dampens this experience. If you focus on that appeal, you will find it is deeply resonant with the emotion of science. It is a very strong argument.

2 Likes

@T_aquaticus I want to apologize to you if I insulted you. You were obviously trying hard to keep the dialog going, and I do appreciate you for that. I got very frustrated with the conversation, for the reasons stated above. I may not have understood well enough to even become frustrated, I don’t know. Hopefully you can see the reasons for the frustration and understand, and that we can accommodate those obstacles in future conversations such that they are mutually profitable. Whether you can or cannot, I was frustrated with the direction of the discussion and not with you personally. Again, my apologies.

2 Likes

The way I see it is… @T_aquaticus is describing several “intermediate” stages in the eye evolution which are fully functional and presenting a story where this change happens through random mutations and natural selection. The things he does not have are -

  1. What were the mutations involved.
  2. The kind of fitness background that would help an eye to evolve… And hence a test for whether natural selection can guide the evolution of an eye
  3. And how exactly these beneficial mutations happen.

In short he is making an unverifiable assertion. I call such assertions just so stories.

Science may or may not be silent about God… However Scientists are not… As long as Scientists use so called neutral Science to make arguments against God, or exaggerate the power of scientific mechanisms such as natural selection to explain things science has not explained… people will have to point why and where they are over reaching in their claims.
I have seen this kind of over reaching too often. If something is an improbable miracle… admit it… That’s more honest than pegging a word random to mutations and acting as if that covers the fact that we have no idea how these things add up to form things like eyes.

1 Like

@swamidass,

Why is this thread taking so much if your time?

Isn’t this an ID discussion that has somehow obligated you to formulate a lengthy response?

Have you inherited the BioLogos burden of explaining science to the unwashed masses?

My hope for PeacefulScience.org is that you would be able to focus on something OTHER than the shackles of the I.D. debate.

1 Like

Its complex. Right now ENV has published six articles this month engaging with me. It is bringing a lot of ID people here, and part of being a good host is taking questions seriously. Also, for many ID is connected to rejecting common descent. I affirm common descent, so this raises us questions about ID.

Your admonition is well taken. After settling some details with IVP, I hope to focus on my book which has little to do with ID.

1 Like

The way I see it… one of the things required to take this discussion forward is to find out exactly how to incorporate scientific evidence into a theological understanding without slipping into some kind of Scientism. And to be seen to do that.
The problem with Biologos is that they seem to slip into Scientism without even realising it
This is a serious concern for me.

2 Likes

I hope you see something different with me.

1 Like

Yes I do… and I am sure others are noticing it too…

1 Like

See @gbrooks9? It is important. Thanks @Ashwin_s.

1 Like