Jeanson and Lisle on Their YEC Model of Evolution


#1

For future reference, these quotes collected by @Joel_Duff are really helpful. I’m just reproducing his post again here:


I thought these quotes from Jeanson/Lisle, both YECs, might be useful as a different way of asking what is TE/EC. I’ve been working on the a manuscript looking at how the YEC view of speciation is hard to distinguish from TE other than the scientific data don’t support it. Consider some observations from an article by Jeanson and Lisle in ARJ (AiGs journal) about the origin of eukaryotic species.

In this paper Jeanson and Lisle propose a creationist speciation mechanism—to explain how so many species could have formed in each kind—which they call the CHNP (Created Heterozygosity and Natural Processes) hypothesis. Read these quotes and tell me how Jeanson and Lisle aren’t practically TEs with respect to how species are created.

Quoting from the paper

Jeanson/Lisle “the CHNP hypothesis proposes that diploid individuals were created heterozygous, and that natural processes since this event (including recombination, gene conversion, mutation, natural selection, etc.) have distributed and/or added to the original created genetic diversity, thus producing the genotypic and consequently, phenotypic diversity we observe today.”

Iinteresting that he uses the term

“add to the original created genetic diversity.”

Could that be construed as adding new information to the genome by natural means?

Jeanson/Lisle: “To be sure, this is not a deistic process. Under the CHNP model, God doesn’t create and then abandon His creation. Rather, the CHNP model recognizes that God is actively involved in His creation, providentially upholding it to this day, and the model recognizes that God works via means, including via the environment and the natural processes that He supernaturally designed and upholds.”

So how is this different than evolutionary creation? Any evolutionary creationist could make the same statement. How might an OEC or ID advocate feel about this statement?

Jeanson/Lisle: As an additional point of clarification, our CHNP model does not reject the operation of mutations, transposition events, or the like. Instead, we propose that “kinds” started with heterozygous genomes and that the genetic variety in these genomes was modified not only by recombination and other reshuffling processes but also by mutation processes—only at rates consistent with documented genetic processes and parameters.”

In other words our model invokes a single, biblically-justified miracle of creation during the Creation Week, and then invokes observable natural processes thereafter. Thus since our model is free of ad hoc miracles and otherwise unobservable natural processes, our model meets the first half of the criteria for the third test above, genetic plausibility at the level of the individual program.”

It appears to me that their hypothesis is that naturalistic evolution happens after initial creation and that evolution should be apparent by studying observable natural processes.

Maybe even more interesting, they don’t seem to be able to say how such mechanism would NOT lead to new “kinds.” Quote: “hence, robust YEC explanations for the origin of a vast number of species must explain not only how genetic mechanisms produce many phenotypes, but also how these processes did not transform one “kind” into another.”

Think about that for a moment. If natural mechanisms can produces such incredible phenotypic diversity in a short time how does it stop itself from making new kinds? That is a good question? But also think about how the very definition of “kind” makes no sense here. A kind is simply an original created organisms and all of its offspring (we call that a monophyletic group). If that original kind diversified into all the canines then it doesn’t matter how different they are from each other, right? They would still be one kind even if you might identify subsets within that kind like cats, dogs and bears. How are they going to know when massive genetic change has gone too far? And what would it mean to go too far anyway?


#2

This is actually a fair sort of model. If that is the rules they set out, we can actually test hypotheses of human origins according to these rules. I’m encouraged.

That also means the work we’ve done on TMR4A effectively falsifies their model, unless they allow from DNA imparted to us from Nephilim. In other words, this YEC model might be rescued by people outside the garden. Interesting. I wonder if they will be as intent on testing their model in collaboration with us as RTB has been, to their credit.


#3

@swamidass

I would tend to disagree with this view. If we use the test of “kind” in Genesis 1/2, what identifies a kind are mated pairs that can produce the next generation. Evolution can and does move a population into new “kinds”… unless you really think a Whale is a valid “sub-kind” of land-going tetrapods. I do not.


#4

The biggest difference would lie in how quickly such diversification could occur; YEC theories require super fast processes --so much so, that they’d be suspect as to their stability within the created order.