Introducing Jeffb

Welcome, @jeffb!

I’m a relative n00b myself - only been around for a month or two.

It’s a fun community, and I’m sure you’re already getting a sense for ‘who’s who at the zoo’.

I look forward to chatting with you.

4 Likes

D’oh! Looks like I already welcomed you 3 weeks ago! Ah well, doubly welcomed, then…

3 Likes

Research arguments for evolution are called the primary scientific literature. There are literally millions of published scientific papers in dozens of scientific disciplines with positive supporting evidence for evolution. A new few hundred more are published every week. It’s not even a question in the scientific community, hasn’t been for over a hundred years.

I don’t know of any published scientific research that was specifically done against Creation. It’s just not worth the waste of valuable time and resources to “refute” such an already long discredited idea as YEC. There are certainly plenty of popular press book and websites with good summaries of evolutionary evidence written to counter the falsehoods places like AIG, ICR, and the DI continually put out. That is not primary research itself however, normally just layman’s overviews. Have you ever read any primary research papers on relevant finds from sciences like genetics or paleontology?

2 Likes

Ok, you would definitely get along with my husband. Pretty much his entire idea of self-expression is tattoos, earrings, and often a mohawk…or whatever hairstyle may drive me crazy. If I criticize it, he’ll keep it longer. I swore I’d never get a tattoo, until I did. :joy:

That’s great! It is actually fun to study evolution. It’s satisfying to challenge your own thinking…but I hope you do know your stuff if you engage folks here. I just like to jump in the deep end, sort of drown and try to figure out how to swim…not the best idea in the world. :sweat_smile:

:rofl:

1 Like

I would be interested in knowing which arguments for evolution and against creation have confirmed you in creationism. But you should really consider looking into the actual scientific literature. I personally find the phylogenetic analysis of genetic evidence most compelling, but of course that’s my field. The fossil record is pretty good too. I’m definitely curious how you manage to reject both of them.

Now, those creationist web sites seldom contain more than old arguments recycled from as far back as George McCready Price. I’d also like to know what you found compelling there. Creationism generally depends on taking a particular reading of Genesis as true a priori. Is that not how you work?

Maybe you should consider it some time.

7 Likes

Like others, I would be curious to hear which arguments for evolution you have looked into. A lot of us here are very familiar with the genetic evidence, so we could definitely point you in the direction of some of those arguments if you are interested.

A lot of the creationists we have discussions with don’t understand what a nested hierarchy is or why it is cited as such powerful evidence for evolution. The nested hierarchy is one of the most fundamental and basic pieces of evidence for evolution, and the fact that many creationists don’t even know what it is tends to indicate that they have been sheltered from even the basics of what supports evolution.

3 Likes

And it can still feel very secure and comforting if you keep it all inside your own head and never let it out in actual arguments to test it, so you don’t have to find out whether you’re really correctly understanding any of it.

1 Like

This.

Another mindboggling thing about creationists is when they deny something as obvious as the fact that natural selection is something that occurs.

2 Likes

Sorry for the delayed response. Work always getting in the way of fun…

Well I think you asked some good questions, I thought I would take some time on these (not sure I always be able to).

Certainly.

As for phylogenies, let me begin with a quick discussion on the “Tree of Life”. I recall viewing AronRay’s TOL videos, and at one point he mentioned that scientist had made a ‘few corrections’ to the tree based on new evidence that one species was more closely related to another one. I paused the video and thought: “more closely related to”. So that’s really the criteria for building this tree? Given any three objects, something has to be “more closely related”. I can go into my kitchen now and build a nested hierarchy with that definition. (The ability to create a nested hierarchy may seem compelling to you evolutionists, but we don’t fine them that compelling. They don’t exclude design.)

Also over the years I’ve collected articles talking about the challenges to creating a fully comprehensive and complete TOL. I’m come the conclusion that I doubt the TOL that neo-Darwin needs exists. Challenges to the TOL are actually one reason I doubt neo-Darwininsm.

As for genetic phylogenies specifically: There does seem to be some interesting data there. I could see someone seeing that as evidence for evolution. As a creationist (to finally answer your question): I look at that evidence a few ways: First off, any evidence based on genetics I try to take lightly, for OR against evolution. Genetics is still a relatively young field. I’ve seen discussions of incongruences, and have a feeling with more research, even more may come out. I get the impression that genetic phylogeny data is good…except when it isn’t. And I’m going to give this one more time.

Second, I look at it as simply “overlapping models”. The data does not rule out design.

So long story short, my personal view is this: Phylogeny data is good, except when it isn’t. And it overlaps with the creation model. I don’t believe it has a very strong ‘pull’ from creation to evolution.

Fossils: Yes, I can see evolutionists viewing that as good evidence for evolution (and again, except when it isn’t). Any honest creationist will confirm that from a high level there appears to be a progression. Ultimately we creationists have to decide that that’s the order of burial during the flood, and try to resolve that through a narrative. If anything, although it may propose challenges, it gives some insight into the different world that existed before the flood.

After that, we also look at other aspects of the fossil record that better match our model. Here’s a few:

  • Statis (that’s a big one for me)

  • Various ‘explosions’ (not just the Cambrian)

  • Sudden appearance

  • Manner of burial common throughout the record: Terrestrial and marine creatures buried together in a catastrophic manner (usually a flood). One would ponder how often events like that go on today.

  • I’m not convinced at the supposed ‘list of transitional fossils”. I’ve listened to evolutionists try and say they have enough, but it’s usually done by listing a few of their favorites, and each of these are not rock-solid. (btw I’m not interested in beating this dead horse)

  • The fossil record offers challenges when attempting to create the TOL

  • Pollen found to low in the record

  • Original soft tissue

  • No enough evidence for ‘slow and gradual’ evolution.

Here’s my conclusion: both sides have their pros and cons, but ultimately I truly believe we have better explanatory power for the fossil record. I don’t have an interest in exchanging my ‘progression challenge’ for what I see are many more challenges. I know this is completely an opinion: but if I were an evolutionists I would be a bit embarrassed by the fossil record.

Well I’m not real sure how to answer that. It looks like your perception is different from mine. They produce quite a bit of new material. I wish I could provide a better answer for you, but there’s just so much material, over so many years. Not sure where to start…

Another good question, which comes up to creationists often. It reminds of discussions of “presuppositionalism” (if that’s where you were going).

The real question here is this: How does one deal with the most extreme of one’s scientific challenges? After all, both sides have them (abiogenesis).

The truth is, we like any others, have no interest in ‘denying science’. We’re too rational for that. We (just like naturalists) try our best to resolve challenges within our worldview.

Presuppositionalism isn’t something someone starts at, but rather concludes to. Like anyone, we want to make sense of reality. We see biblical creationism as an option for making sense of it. We view all the evidence, and do our very best to deal with the challenging ones. The problem is, no one (on either side of this) can fully remove every scientific challenge. We accept, like philosophers all tell us, that “No worldview is going to be perfect.” As one friend of mine put it when discussing age of the earth: “Everyone has to eat a {expletive remove} sandwich, we just have to choose our condiments”

Side note: Since worldviews are evaluated by 1) Explanatory power, and 2) Internal consistency, we look at ours, vs. alternatives in that light.

So only after we’ve done our best to address something scientifically, we conclude: “We don’t know, but we also know that science changes. More research is needed” and we decided to stick with our interpretation of the bible. That’s where the ‘a priori’ stance is invoked. After all, remember that once we didn’t know how to explain lightning and thunder, and later filled in that knowledge gap! (yes, that was deliberate)

What I find refreshing here is the concept of “Internal consistency” I mentioned. I turns out, our model (based on the bible), predicts that no worldview is perfect. I predicts that knowledge gaps WILL exist. So taking a presuppositional approach is therefore internally consistent within our worldview.

BTW, Here’s a great article on presuppositionalism: Presuppositional Apologetics | Biblical Science Institute

–END NOTE–

Holy cow. In order to properly answer @John_Harshman, I stepped away from PS for a while (plus I had Work).

In the meantime, WAY too many posts flew by me.

And I have a feeling once I post this one, that will be fodder for a flurry of even more new questions, which I’m not opposed to, but simply do not have time to be able to answer all of. This answer took long enough!

I have a feeling I just painted a target on my chest. Look, you all might have to wait in line ‘take your shot’ at me. Can I have you all take a number??

3 Likes

Oh yea, I forgot as well. And nice knowing I’m not the only newbie here…

Sounds like a classy guy!

I do see that! There’s some incredibly smart folks here. I might not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I believe I might be able to provide ‘perspective’ from one of them ‘creationists’. I would hope they would at least like to hear what we think…

“What of this creature, who has no credentials, yet walks upright AND actually believes the bible!? Let’s ponder him…”

Man that’s brave!

1 Like

Why would that have to be true across entire genomes? A designer could take pieces and parts from different genomes so that one human gene is more closely related to jellyfish, another gene is more closely related to mice, and yet another gene is most closely related to a bird species. In fact, humans do this type of thing all of the time when we are designing genomes.

You could also build a non-nested hierarchy. That’s the point. There is no reason why design would [necessarily] result in a nested hierarchy. However, a nested hierarchy is the only pattern evolution can produce among species with vertical inheritance.

Horizontal genetic transfer does create a web in parts of the tree of life, but for eukaryotes there is definitely a strong tree-like structure to life.

This is a case of noise vs. signal. For example, let’s look at this graph:

image

Most people would say there is an obvious correlation between weight and height in the data set. However, almost none of the data points falls on the regression line. Does this mean there is no correlation? Of course not. The signal of the correlation is still there, but there is noise in the data.

Also, genetics has been around for more than 100 years. It’s hardly young. The genetic data is the most precise data we have with respect to evolution. Genomes are a direct record of a species’ ancestry.

6 Likes

I never questioned creationism until I entered university. Learning we could only make 10 out of the 20 standard amino acids, pushed me to question creationism for the first time. It was similar to learning your favorite car designer intentionally refused to add in many essential components to your car. I also, at the time, wondered why God would tell Adam to eat only fruits, since it would have been a bad dietary practice in the absence of supplements: a fruitarian diet does not provide all necessary nutrients a human being needs for proper functioning.

From that point onwards, evolutionary theory began to make more sense to me. I still did not understand how fossils or biostratigraphy supported evolutionary theory, but I pretty much understood the evidence from molecular genetics (not almost immediately though). DNA hybridization experiments with human, mouse and chimp DNA got me started on the molecular evidence for common descent. After learning more, I realized common descent was nigh impossible to deny under a scientific context.

I think I let creationism go because I approached it the scientific way: letting the evidence lead. I think you should try it :+1:

4 Likes

Okay, do it.

4 Likes

If you don’t start with presuppositionalism, but rather concludes to it through some chain of reasoning, how can that chain of reasoning be said to be rational if it is not based on assuming presuppositionalism? It seems to me you’ve now said that you arrived at presuppositionalism through a method presuppositionalism says is irrational.

I like the link you supplied, which states:

This is where presuppositional apologetics shines. The presuppositionalist does not merely present evidence for the unbeliever to evaluate on his own unbelieving terms. Rather, the presuppositionalist challenges the unbeliever’s worldview, showing its internal inconsistency, arbitrariness, and its failure to make sense of knowledge. The presuppositionalist demonstrates that the unbeliever’s worldview is inherently defective and irrational, by an internal critique.

How does the presuppositionalist accomplish this?

3 Likes

I made a rather extensive OP in regards to flood interpretations of fossil stratification here…

In that thread, I did not receive any counters or challenges from Peaceful Science YEC proponents, perhaps you would have a look.

6 Likes

What was your point in posting a big laundry list of long refuted Creationist claims if you’re not willing to discuss or defend them? Not necessarily on this thread but in general at PS. It’s pretty obvious you don’t have the scientific background to know what you get from YEC websites is science-free nonsense. I notice you didn’t say if you’ve ever read anything from the primary scientific literature either. I’m assuming no, is that wrong?

The impression you give (rightly or wrongly) is you don’t seem very interested in learning about the actual science behind evolutionary theory. Are you just here to cheerlead for YEC? Or are you willing to actually discuss the technical details of the science involved?

3 Likes

What data if found would rule out “design” in biological life? If no possible discovery can falsify your hypothesis then it’s not science.

3 Likes

“Talking about…” is an interesting way to put it.

But not based on any evidence, correct?

It’s not at all clear from your writing that you have ever examined any of the data. Would you please describe some of these data that you have examined?

1 Like

That perspective is very much appreciated. I am hoping that we can help you understand where we are coming from as well.

Parsimony might be a topic you could look into. In science, we don’t replace a well evidenced natural process with an unevidenced and supernatural process that exactly mimics the natural process. I think you can understand why we don’t look favorably on arguments where design is said to exactly mimic evolution for no apparent reason.

5 Likes