So many words Dan, Ben just want you to say “evolutionary theory is false” so he can run to some creationist website with that as a quote. No need for your 16 pages of clarification, it’s all trivial.
2 Likes
Yes creationists are famously resistant to clarification and would rather love nice little soundbites that leaves out important details so they can sell misleading quotemines to their flock.
Arch-charlatan Henry Morris wrote an entire book on that premise, consisting entirely of quote-mines designed to be short and easy to digest, making it seem like all of the findings of modern science are false.
One wonders why they want to ape science so much.
1 Like
Which basically admits that there is no real contradiction. The model is a model. It makes no claim that mutations are uncaused. Nor does evolutionary theory make such a claim. And if you don’t understand that much then writing 16 pages is indeed a waste of time - writing anything on the subject would be a waste of time.
2 Likes
AND
Ben has been a good citizen through all of this. I don’t see any need to pick on him because we disagree. We already knew that we would disagree. 
Evolutionary theory is not real issue here. The issue (as I see it) is why Evolution is acceptable to TE but not to YEC.
Ben writes …
This makes a statement about something God cannot do. This isn’t supportable mathematically, and I find it highly questionable that any theologian would agree that God should be limited in this way.
But what if we turn this around …
But God’s creative acts cannot include evolution, so His acts of Creation must not be random.
Now we have a statement about YEC belief (“cannot include evolution”) which drives the conclusion (“Creation must not be random”).
I still disagree, but now the conclusion follows the premise from a YEC point of view. This more clearly defines the disagreement between YEC and TE, and dodges the need to define randomness or allow for convergence.
If there were a statement like, “However the Creation happened, God’s acts are not random,” then I think most YEC and TE could agree.
2 Likes
@Roy and @Dan_Eastwood:
So is Roy being ironic? Both clauses take the position that “God knows” and that “humans dont.”
Is that what Roy really wants to say? Or did Roy intend for one clause to mean God knows, but in the other clause God doesnt know?
Thank you, @Dan_Eastwood ,
for introducing a reasonable resolution into what struck me as an unreasonably construed false dilemma.
I dont know any scientist who would equate the phrase “random mutation” with very different phrase “uncaused mutation”.
Further, I think the idea that we dont know WHAT causes mutations is an egregious exaggeration. I think the truth of the matter is that we can hardly imagine what does NOT cause a mutation at one time or another:
1] local heat;
2] local cold;
3] presence of extra water;
4] absence of enough water;
5] a physical bumping of the
genetic during replication;
6] inadequate supply of a key
enzyme;
7] inadequate supply of a needed
amino acid.
And so on.
1 Like
From my point of view, I would prefer to say:
However the creation came to be, God’s acts can involve random processes from the perspective of the methodological naturalism of science while not being ontologically random from a theological perspective.
That’s just a fancier way to say what the Bible already says in Proverbs 16:33: “The lot is cast into the lap but the decision (‘mishpat’) is from the Lord”. And that is simply saying that what is random to humans can be non-random to God.
Problem solved. 
3 Likes
I suppose this could cause mutations, but I doubt it is a measurable source of them in most lineages.
None of these things, as far as I know, causes mutation.
#5 is awfully vague and as written is unlikely to be a measurable cause of mutation, but okay.
#6 is more likely to kill a cell or cease replication than it is to cause mutations but if we mean “proofreading enzyme” then sure, that would lead to mutations galore.
#7 is likely not a measurable cause of mutations.
That list would make a lot more sense as a source of causes of adaptation. It’s mostly inaccurate and distracting (given the topic of our knowledge of what causes mutation in the context of evolution) as a list of “causes” of mutation.
3 Likes
Balderdash!
I see you carefully omitted my quote from Box. Here it is again:
All models are wrong, some are useful.
All models Ben. Not just “evolutionary theory”. Every. Single. One. Of. Them. All scientific models and theories are imperfect and thus (at least a little) “wrong”. Your singling out evolutionary theory is thus a fallacious Special Pleading.
The models used to design the CPU that your computer uses to allow you to write your post are imperfect, and thus (at least a little) “wrong” – yet your computer still works – so it is hard to see them as “false”.
Scientific knowledge, like all human knowledge, is imperfect. That is why science is provisional.
But even setting that aside, your harping on about ontological randomness, versus merely ‘appearing random’ is irrelevant.
Back in my undergraduate days, I did a paper on Industrial and Applied Statistics that included Queuing Theory. Queuing Theory assumes that arrivals to a queue are random. Of course, if we had a private investigator following every potential arrival, their arrivals would become observably non-random – but that doesn’t actually matter. ‘Appears to be random’ and ‘is not non-random in a way that invalidates the model’ (for example if a large proportion of them got off work at the same time, and would go straight to the queue, that would be a problem) is sufficient for the model’s validity.
In the same way, the fact that mutations might not be perfectly, ontologically random, and thus that they might be observable as non-random by an omniscient being, does not affect the validity of the statistical models underlying evolutionary theory.
In harping on about “ontological randomness” and implying that this in some way renders evolutionary theory “false”, you are simply admitting that you Ben Kissling understand neither science nor statistics.
I will admit that it is imperfect, and thus “false”, if and only if you admit that your understanding of God is imperfect and thus likewise “false”.
Your equation of “imperfect” with “false” is ludicrous hyperbole. According to this exaggerated viewpoint as all human knowledge is imperfect, all human knowledge is false. Congratulations, you have just proved to yourself that everything you know is false.
4 Likes
You are welcome, but I don’t think Ben sees this as a false dilemma; I think that is what he believes. I’ve modified my position on this with my comments just above. Randomness is not the real issue here; acceptance of evolution is.
Well stated.There are a multitude of YEC arguments against evolution invoking the randomness of mutations(and more), but I’ve never seen a claim that God cannot be random. It might be reasonable that God cannot or will not create with unrestricted (infinite) variability. There have to be some limits to what is actually created, or you end up with chaos.
1 Like
My simple intention was to show the great range of agents that can interfere with replication.
I can now see that i did nobody any favors by being too general. For example, my reference to heat was my lame attempt to include radiation as well as random moments of ambient energy.
So in penance, i searched for a technically SPECIFIC list of various factors:
"Various factors lead to mutations, including
radiation (x-rays),
viruses,
toxic compounds such as
- heavy metals,
- chemicals, and
- cigarette smoke. "
"These factors that lead to mutation are known as mutagens or mutagenic agents. Mutagens are grouped into:
[Physical mutagens] -
These include :
UV light,
Gamma rays,
Cosmic rays, and
X-rays.
[Chemical Mutagens] -
Examples include :
- 5-Bromouracil,
- Nitrogen mustard,
- Nitrous oxide,
- Proflavine,
- colchicine,
- mustard gas, and
- Hydroxylamine."
https://study.com/academy/lesson/causes-of-mutation-and-dna-damage-mutagens.html
I think that the real issue is whether TE should be acceptable to Christians.
Which I think comes down to the question of whether the workings of natural mechanisms can be seen as the workings of God. Even if mutations were random in the full sense statistics and the role of selection (which seems to have been ignored here) would seem sufficient to address that issue.
4 Likes
Hmmm, maybe that’s where one of your errors arose… mutation (especially in the context of evolution) isn’t about “interfere with replication.” You might want to read some basics.
Your post lists a lot of external sources of DNA damage (radiation, chemicals, etc) and the odd study.com site you linked was about chemical mutagens. My understanding is that these external influences are not thought to be the predominant sources of variation in most (maybe all?) lineages. To learn more, you might consider reading about sources of genetic variation without such a focus on DNA damage caused by external factors. For now, it’s sufficient to point out that your post is an incomplete accounting of what we know about mutations.
4 Likes
I don’t think that is the only issue. That may be one issue, but it’s not that I think their definition is wrong. Keep in mind I’m only dealing with MTE here as presented by Murray, Churchill, and to some extent Craig, who is not even clearly defending the view.
The definition of “random” that Craig gives is the same one you’ll hear from most evolutionists, and that is that mutations are random with respect to their usefulness to the organism, defined in terms of fitness. I’m arguing that’s correct but that theologians like Craig, Murray, and Churchill do not fully understand what that means. Because they don’t have any interest or understanding of the scientific issues involved, they are listening to the words of that definition and taking it as a philosophically and theologically precise definition. Evolutionists, meanwhile, do not understand how to define “random mutations” in philosophically and theologically precise terms. I give as evidence this conversation. An actual synthesis would start with a clear definition that is accurate according to the requirements of both disciplines.
So let me put it to you directly: Do you disagree with my definition of random mutations?
I like an earlier illustration someone else used: dice. Not to get too nerdy here, but there’s a tabletop gaming system that Dungeons and Dragons uses called a d20 system for a 20-sided dice. It has players roll a single d20 for nearly everything. A single d20 is a flat probability distribution. Every result has the same probability. There’s a competing system called GURPS that uses 3 d6s as its primary roll instead of a d20. As was pointed out above, three d6s does not have a flat distribution. It’s a bell curve or Gaussian distribution. So as a game designer, you can choose how the probability distribution will work out over a large number of rolls. I actually think that’s perfectly compatible with the doctrine of creation if God is doing something like that with nature. Each atom could have random behavior, let’s just use radioactive decay as an example, but with large numbers of them they converge to a predictable probability distribution. Okay. I understand this, and that’s fine.
The problem with DNA sequences is that it’s the sequence that matters, not the distribution curve. If the die rolls are ontologically random, or at least modeled that way, then nobody can determine the sequence of rolls. You can only determine the resulting distribution over a large number of rolls. This is the information problem.
What do you mean by “acceptance” here?
The 16 pages I refer to is the paper I’m critiquing. The only claim I’m making is that evolutionary theory models mutations as uncaused, and this causes the incompatibility with the doctrine of creation. You say evolution makes no claim that mutations are uncaused. So what? It models them as uncaused. You cannot hold the model and the doctrine to both be true at the same time. That’s a contradiction. Are you claiming that evolutionary theory doesn’t model mutations as uncaused? Then what’s their cause(s) according to the model? And how does the model account for these causes?
Selection is not powerful enough to specify sequences given the probabilistic resources available to it. But this is a different discussion. I am responding to the MTE position as stated in Murray and Churchill’s paper, and they do not stake their claim on the power of selection to “unrandomize” mutations. They explicitly appeal to mutations that have a probability of 1 if one was God and has knowledge of all the relevant facts. So they do not accept mutations as “random in the full sense.” Selection is ignored because what you’ve said here is simply not the position I’m critiquing.
Apparently you did not read my comments.
You seem to misunderstand me. I’m not trying to invalidate the model here. I’m pointing out that accepting the model as an accurate representation of reality is incompatible with the Christian doctrine of creation. If your position is that the model is not an accurate representation of reality, then you and I don’t have an issue, at least on this topic.
There are two ways, philosophically, one could say the model is not true.
-
A scientific realist could say that the model is only meant to be an approximation of the truth, since the actual truth is unknown. Therefore they would say the model is strictly speaking not true, but is some approximation of truth.
-
A scientific anti-realist, or instrumentalist like me, could say that the model is not meant to be true in any sense at all. It’s only meant to be useful. It’s like a tool, not a truth proposition, and has no content that should be understood as either true or false.
I would think yes, evolutionary theory doesn’t model mutations as uncaused.
Is there any example of population genetics specifically using “uncaused mutation(s)” in the model? It seems to me that you imputing an adjective which is not really there, and equating what is meant to be taken as “a given” with “uncaused”. It is not that that parameter has no cause, just that the particular cause is immaterial to the analysis and for that purpose can be ignored. If the focus is on how traits propagates under various fitness distributions, environmental selections, and population sizes, the biochemistry of mutation is not especially relevant. But in principle, you could expressly stipulate the likelihood of all the various mutational modalities and foci.
6 Likes
Sure it is. Your immune system does that reliably in only two weeks. More importantly, it doesn’t specify sequences, it specifies function, which is why Axe is so wrong. The same is true for the evolution of organisms.
3 Likes
-
Why would this not apply to all biologists, not just “evolutionists”?
-
You left out the important word “only,” as in “mutations are ONLY random with respect to their usefulness to the organism.”
Wouldn’t your effort be better expended educating them, then?
I seem to recall that @swamidass has done exactly that. Is my recollection incorrect?
I’m pretty sure he’s using it scientifically, to distinguish it from “belief” and “faith.” Many IDcreationists love to conflate them in the straw-man claim that scientists believe in evolution.
1 Like
My point is that this is irrelevant. The model is a model. To condemn it as “false” for being a model makes as much sense as calling a map “false`’ for being a map. The “problem” only applies to people who don’t understand that the model is a model - and there is no reason to consider this at all relevant to the actual question of Theistic Evolution.
It is not necessary for the model to account for the causes of mutation since those causes have little effect on the outcome. The question of why the model doesn’t include huge amounts of irrelevant - or at most barely relevant - detail practically answers itself.
But I did not claim that it did. Why is it necessary for particular sequences to be specified ?
Ultimately it comes down to this. Our universe appears to run through natural processes without regular supernatural intervention. Evolution is such a process. If the others are acceptable - for whatever theological reason is given - then why not evolution ?
6 Likes
What is the distinction between a model, and a truth proposition? Does a truth proposition have content that is meant to be true in any sense, or is it only meant to be useful? It seems to me that models are propositions, albeit self consciously limited ones.
2 Likes
I haven’t looked at the paper so I’m assuming that you represent it accurately. I have my doubts, because no competent thinker would claim that “evolutionary theory models mutations as uncaused.”
Many here have noted that the second part of that sentence is dubious at best. It is of no interest to me as an atheist, but as a former believer I know that there is no single “doctrine of creation” and so the claim can only stand if/when it is clarified to indicate which “doctrine of creation” is being discussed.
But the first part of the sentence is just plain false, and its repetition would be disingenuous (or flat lying). Here are the reasons why you should stop repeating this nonsense, for the sake of your integrity.
Reason 1: there is no one “evolutionary theory” that presents a single “model” of how mutations are related to function or selection or occurrence or guidance by Thor or healing by the Morrígan. If all you did was cease to present “evolutionary theory” as a monolithic system with a single model of mutation, you would vastly improve the credibility of your writing.
I am familiar with many of the interesting perspectives and camps within evolutionary biology, and that includes some substantive disagreements about the role of mutations in evolution. For example, new findings are (IMO) tilting the balance toward a perspective called “mutation-biased evolution,” championed by a biologist named Arlin Stoltzfus in a book called Mutation, Randomness, and Evolution (I own it but haven’t started reading yet). (You can read more in a recent paper, open access, linked at bottom.) The point is that concepts of randomness in the context of mutations and evolution are far from settled, and thus it is a simplistic error to claim that evolutionary biology writ large has a single quasi-religious position on their roles and causation.
Reason 2: I trust that your use of the word “uncaused” is an error, traceable perhaps to your theological/philosophical angle in this conversation or perhaps traceable to the 16 pages of analysis you are critiquing. But the claim that anyone “models mutations as uncaused” is a laughable falsehood. If you meant “uncaused by a supernatural force” then you should always include that. If you meant “uncaused by any known phenomenon in the universe” then this is false. If you take that falsehood and use it in the service of a theological or apologetic argument, which is what this conversation looks like to me, then you invite (and deserve) the kind of suspicion and scorn that others have expressed here.
I don’t think you mean to mislead your audience. I think you are just very poorly informed about what these concepts mean in science, about the diversity of thought in evolutionary biology, and about who is worth listening to. Those factors are threatening your credibility, and it would be a shame if you continued to write treatises based on gross falsehoods.
Mutation bias and the predictability of evolution. Cano et al. (2023) Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2022.0055
2 Likes