Strange indeed.
I’ve pasted below an excerpt from page 4 of the paper but here is my summary of SOME key points which I found interesting. [My comments are in this format.]
(1) Our objective is to demonstrate that all organisms shared a universal common designer. [UCD yes; UCA no]
(2) Common design is manifested through the evolutionary process [processes??]
(3) Why might a designer use nested hierarchies?
(4) “we outline a series of methods and steps for testing the model, including unique falsifiable predictions.” [Personally, I found the “falsifiable predictions” not so much. In my opinion, this is one of the weakest segments of the paper.]
(5) Our perspective could enhance acceptance of evolution by teaching students that it does not disprove the existence of a God or gods. [An interesting objective but one for a philosophy paper, not a scientific paper.]
Is this a shift in orientation at Reasons to Believe? From what I know of Fuz Rana (who is the “Corresponding Author” of the article), he is still a macro vs. micro evolution emphasizer—where he rejects “big macro” evolution and the idea of Universal Common Ancestry. He promotes “progressive creation” where God created in a series of steps, introducing new “major” taxonomic groups [my term, not his; can’t remember what he calls them] over time. To some degree, his ideas remind me of Ken Ham’s BARAMIN (“created kinds”), each baramin of which is able to diversify over time through evolutionary processes----even though Ham and others at AIG and CMI refuse to call that diversification evolution. Anyway, I didn’t expect to see Rana encouraging better teaching of evolution in K through 12 schools but perhaps I’m behind the times.
Here is that excerpt from page 4 of the paper:
The primary objective of this article, based on existing literature, is to demonstrate how all extant organisms share a common design traceable to a universal common designer. Initially, we conduct a brief review of the evidence supporting Owen’s theory and explore how his notion of a common platonic archetype may relate to human consciousness or a self-collapsing wave-function, thus synthesizing specific theories of quantum consciousness and process structuralism. Next, we delve into the rationale behind expecting a common design to manifest through the evolutionary process rather than solely through common descent. Subsequently, we propose potential reasons why a designer might utilize nested patterns in creation. We then present an extended version of thecommon archetype theory, followed by an updated model of species origins, elucidating how major species may have been separately designed. Furthermore, we outline a series of methods and steps for testing the model, including unique falsifiable predictions.
The rationale for our research approach is evident in this study, which revealed that 56.5% of students perceived evolution as atheistic, even when provided with the option to consider an agnostic perspective [6]. Notably, among the most religious students, those who viewed evolution as atheistic exhibited lower acceptance, discomfort in learning, and a heightened perception of conflict between their personal religious beliefs and evolution compared to those who considered evolution as agnostic [6]. The authors propose that if the observed associations in their study prove to be causally linked, college biology instructors could enhance acceptance of evolution by teaching students that it does not disprove the existence of a God or gods [6]. Another rationale guiding our research approach pertains to the implications of Evolution’s mechanisms, which generate biological innovations by repurposing existing designs and assembling them to form new ones. Consequently, a prevalent perspective withinthe scientific community perceives biological systems as inherently flawed [13]. This perception of fundamental flaws leads many scientists to prematurely conclude that biological systems lack purpose or function when initial investigations fail to unveila clear rationale for their design [13].
Once this determination is made, the motivation to continue studying the system diminishes [13]. Therefore, we contend that our enhanced version of Owen’s evolution theory not only permits its inclusion in school curricula but also provides an additional avenue for educators to convey to students that evolution does not negate the existence of a God or gods, thereby fostering increased acceptance of evolution. Moreover, it offers a more robust framework for advancing scientific understanding, particularly when the rationale for the structure and function of a specific biological system remains elusive.
I am a fan of Hugh Ross (founder of Reasons to Believe) not so much for his ideas but for how he lives out “peaceful science” in affable ways. I like him. (Dr. Rana, however, I’m not so familiar. He may be equally affable.) So I try to be as generous as I can about this paper, a product of RTB. Nevertheless, AT BEST I consider this paper more suitable for a theological journal, especially with his forays into Biblical exegesis. (For example: Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. However, the current editor is a professor at Dallas Theological Seminary and I doubt that she would consider it because the paper is still too “evolution-friendly” for many of the more fundamentalist ETS members who are likely to go ballistic over it. Maybe I’m wrong. I’ve been retired for a long time and haven’t attended the annual ETS conferences and hobnobbed with members since the late 1990’s.)
The paper certainly does not belong in a scientific journal. That judgement is NOT a put-down in itself but is in line with what I’ve written on countless occasions when critiquing Intelligent Design pronouncements from The Discovery Institute: It is a theology and philosophy discussion which happens to interact with scientific topics. That’s not the same thing as science per se.
If this were a semester paper produced by one of my undergrads in some independent study course, I would probably congratulate them on their creativity and willingness to explore the implications of the science they are dissecting. But with a graduate student, not so much. In any case, again, this just doesn’t belong in a peer-reviewed science journal. As with so many of the Discovery Institute papers, it is philosophy/theology interacting with scientific topics—but trying hard to sound like science so that it can seem more credible to a broader audience. (After all, even IDers recognize that science has the best track record for explaining natural processes and with many people—though certainly not enough people nowadays—science commands respect.)
I certainly don’t want to discourage philosophical/theological explorations of scientific topic. I just want them to be published in the appropriate venues.
That’s my story and I’m stickin’ to it.
