Sunspots 1004

Things I have spotted that may be of interest to others:

An extensive web site on Charles Wesley.

Gizmodo reports on terrible conditions for living things in ancient times. Probably these threats were caused, or enhanced, by ferns. That's right, ferns.

An article in The Conversation, discusses testosterone levels carefully. Unlike some.

NPR, and other outlets on a rogue artificial intelligence, which hacked into another AI, without help from real humans.

SpaceDaily reports on exploration, deep in ocean tranches, by a Chinese group, which found large ecosystems, getting their energy from methane and other molecules.

Joel Duff has posted a careful analysis of Intelligent Design ideas.

Heart, Mind,, Soul and Strength gives a list of Greek words for kinds of love, and, also, Greek words for love that weren't used in the New Testament.

Sunspots 997

 

Joel Duff has posted a thorough examination of the use of "design" by Christians, and argues, successfully, I believe, that there is a fundamental flaw in the Intelligent Design movement.

Duff has also posted a refutation of the frequent claim by young-earth creationists that evolution is not real science, because we can't observe it in action. He points out that baraminology can't be real science, either, if observing it unfold is necessary.

Neuroscience News reports on research showing that ability to sense and produce music is part of the nature of animals and humans.

Gizmodo reports that the use of artificial intelligence is adding to work loads, rather than cutting them.

Gizmodo also reports that Vice-President Vance believes that UFOs are demons.

NPR reports that some types of roaches form pair bonds. (These are not typical household roaches. There are many kinds of roach.)

BioLogos: New genetic information added

One of the arguments against evolution by natural selection is that information can only come from an intelligent agent. This article, in BioLogos, by Dennis Venema, refutes that assertion.

This article is not new, but it is important, and, after recently re-reading it, I wanted to call attention to it. It doesn't rule out divine activity, and, at the least, shows us, indirectly, that the God-produced systems of cellular biology are wonderfully complex, and have the power to bring about novel structures and molecules.

Thanks for reading.

What to call your beliefs about origins?

Naturalis Historia has posted an excellent web page, which provides a flow chart for determining what your beliefs about origins are usually called, and also has descriptions of the major categories of belief on origins. (Young-earth creationist, etc.) This post must have been a lot of work.

You may also want to look at my own web page, which attempts to do more or less the same thing.

Thanks for your interest.

Sunspots 653

Things I have recently spotted that may be of interest to someone else:


Computing: Wired reports that there is now a church, sort of, which more or less worships artificial intelligence. The IRS has granted this "church" tax-exempt status.

Health: Time, and other outlets, report that the Centers for Disease Control say that about 90% of Americans don't eat enough fruit and vegetables. Not a surprise.

Politics: Relevant reports that a game manufacturer is trying to block President Trump's wall by acquiring property on the border.

National Public Radio, and other sources, report that the Keystone Pipeline recently spilled 5,000 barrels of oil. Hardly a surprise, unfortunately.

Wired has compiled an annotated list of things Attorney General Jeff Sessions told Congress that he can't remember.

Science: Listverse describes 10 islands, and their unusual animal populations.

Scientific American reports on a body from outside our solar system that is on its way out of it.

The He Lives blog argues that the Intelligent Design movement isn't about science, although it's usually presented that way.

An illustrated and annotated periodic table.

Thanks for looking!

Can evolution by natural selection be responsible for new information/new genes?

Last month, Stephen C. Meyer, an advocate for the Intelligent Design movement*, debated with two other persons.  I did not see, hear, or read the debate, but Meyer has posted about it, and Dennis Venema, of BioLogos, has also done so.

*Intelligent design is, in simplest terms, the idea that God planned the universe. The Intelligent Design movement, (ID) however, also believes this, but furthermore believes that God did not plan that natural selection would be capable of generating new information or new genes. ID also believes that it is possible to prove God's planning, and, by inference, His occasional intervention in living systems, scientifically, and that Intelligent Design should be taught as an alternative to evolution by natural selection in the public schools of the US. Some ID adherents also believe in a young earth. Some do not. I am not an IDer, but I do believe in intelligent design.

What was the debate about? Well, one thing that the debate was about was the question posed by the title. If the answer to that question is definitely shown to be "no," then ID gains considerable credibility. Not only that, but evolution by natural selection should not be taught in public (or private) schools as an explanation for the vast diversity of living things. Meyer believes that the answer is, indeed, no. He is wrong.

Why is he wrong?

One reason is that Meyer, and others, cite a paper by Douglas Axe. The paper was published in what I take to be a scientific, peer-reviewed, journal. Axe claims to have shown that the probability of protein being able to perform a new function is vanishingly small. However, there are some problems with Axe's work, or at least his conclusions. Some of them are detailed here. To summarize, Axe wasn't working with a normal protein, but with a chosen small subset of normal proteins. That means that his estimate of probability is too small. How much too small is impossible to state, but enough that it seriously weakens his argument. More criticism of the validity of using Axe's work to show that the answer to the question of the title of this post should be answered with a "no" is here.

The problem with Meyer's answer (and that of others) to the question is not only reliance on Axe. There is also a misunderstanding of probability. See here for more on that.

Dennis Venema argues, here, that the antibody-producing mechanism of vertebrates is, in fact, able, by natural means, to generate new DNA sequences, which can help defend against organisms, or substances, which have newly arisen. If the antibody-producing mechanism can do that, this shows that the answer to the question above is, at least partly, "yes."

Finally, what is probably the strongest argument that the answer to the question posed is, in fact, "yes," is that new genes have arisen within the recent past. One example of this is a gene in some bacteria which codes for a protein that allows them to use nylon as a food. (Nylon is a synthetic fiber which did not occur at all until the twentieth century.) That gene has arisen since the production of nylon, and its release into the environment. 

Another example of a new gene arising, in the recent past, is discussed here.  This post, discusses some posts by Venema, which describe another example of functional genetic material arising, apparently through natural selection.

It appears that part of God's design was the mechanism of natural selection, which makes it possible for natural systems to come up with new means of coping with new or unique environmental conditions. To me, and others, that is at least as amazing as it would be if God had, as it were, stepped in to specially create such solutions. 

Thanks for reading!

"We don't have a single example of a mutation resulting in a net gain of information. Not one" (But we do)

The title of this post quotes Eric Metaxas, and is part of a post, by him, on BreakPoint: "We don't have a single example of a mutation resulting in a net gain of information. Not one."

I appreciate Mr. Metaxas. I have read a couple of excellent books by him, and have previously posted about his writing, here and here. However, Mr. Metaxas, who has many gifts, and has done a great deal of good, is not an expert in genetics. He seems to be repeating a statement that he has heard from the Discovery Institute, an organization which argues that mutations did not bring about new functions in organisms. Please note that it is always possible to argue that any difference, however small, between two organisms is the result of God's specific miraculous intervention, and this cannot be experimentally disproved. (It has not been proved, either, and probably couldn't be, even if true.) But it can be doubted, and alternative mechanisms for the rise of new genetic information have been found.The Discovery Institute promotes the idea that God has, indeed, caused all changes in the DNA of two related species, because random changes cannot produce new functions. However, most scientists, Christian and otherwise, believe that most, or all, of such differences have come about through random mutation, followed by selection. Many Christian scientists believe that God has allowed random mutation and selection to exist, as a means of bringing about the diversity of organisms present on earth.

I'm not completely clear as to what Mr. Metaxas means by information. That is a complex subject, and different experts define it in different ways. But it seems clear that he is claiming that living things have never added a function as a result of a mutation. Sorry, but we do have such examples.

The first comment on Mr. Metaxas's post proposes that frameshift mutations have been a common means for the arrival of new functions, and provides a URL, which leads to this article, which is quite technical. The article claims that searching the genome of mice and humans has led to the discovery of several hundred genes that must have arisen by this type of mutation. The first two sentences of this article (after the abstract) are as follows:
"Several mechanisms, such as exon shuffling and alternative splicing, are responsible for novel gene functions, but they generate homologous domains and do not usually lead to drastic innovation. Major novelties can potentially be introduced by frameshift mutations and this idea can explain the creation of novel proteins."
The authors, then, believe that there are "several" mechanisms for the origin of novel gene functioning, including frameshift mutations.

The matter of the rise of new information has been discussed, in six posts in the BioLogos forum, by Dennis Venema. I briefly summarize these posts:
In the first, Venema discusses the position of the Discovery Institute, and the Intelligent Design Movement, and is related to the second paragraph of this post.
He says: "... describing how specified information can arise through natural means does not in any way imply God’s absence from the process. After all, natural processes are equally a manifestation of God’s activity as what one would call supernatural events."

In the second post, Venema describes the Long-Term Evolution Experiment. During this experiment, a colony of sexually reproducing bacteria experienced a mutation which allowed them to use citrate as an energy source, when, prior to that mutation, or series of mutations, they had not been able to do so.

In the third post, Venema discusses evidence that genes for hormone receptor proteins developed, in vertebrates, from duplication, and subsequent alteration, of an ancestral gene.

The fourth post argues, with evidence, that even the DNA responsible for complexly folded proteins may change so that a new function comes about, and that this has happened many times.

In his fifth post, Venema summarizes evidence that the entire vertebrate genome was duplicated, in an ancestor in the distant past, and that some of the "extra" copies of the genes thus formed have gone on to be responsible for new functions in vertebrates:
"This evidence is a strong indication that the modern vertebrate genome went through two rounds of [Whole Genome Duplication] early in its evolution, and that these events provided substantial 'raw material' for the acquisition of new information through gene divergence and neofunctionalization."

In his sixth, and last, post, Venema discusses the differences between the genes of humans and our closest relatives, the chimpanzees.

Thanks for reading. Mr. Venema, nor I, doubt that God is able to create, and change His creations, by any way He sees fit, including the miraculous. However we, and many other Christian scientists, believe that God designed the world so that random mutations, of various types, and natural selection, have given rise to much of the variety that is found in God's good creation. The assertion by Mr. Metaxas that forms the title of this post does not stand up the the evidence.

Added April 8, 2016: A later post on this blog refers to two other examples of recently arising functional genes.

describing how specified information can arise through natural means does not in any way imply God’s absence from the process. After all, natural processes are equally a manifestation of God’s activity as what one would call supernatural events. - See more at: https://biologos.org/blogs/dennis-venema-letters-to-the-duchess/evolution-and-the-origin-of-biological-information-part-1-intelligent-design#sthash.baHk5Eyt.dpuf

describing how specified information can arise through natural means does not in any way imply God’s absence from the process. After all, natural processes are equally a manifestation of God’s activity as what one would call supernatural events. - See more at: https://biologos.org/blogs/dennis-venema-letters-to-the-duchess/evolution-and-the-origin-of-biological-information-part-1-intelligent-design#sthash.baHk5Eyt.dpuf

Sunspots 452

Things I have recently spotted that may be of interest to

someone else:

Philosophy: A post on The Skeptical Zone, by an atheist, claims that science cannot disprove that there was an Intelligent Designer. My own opinion is that this is correct, and that science can't prove that there was, either. Hebrews 11:3.
Science: Fox News reports that dogs try to align their bodies with the earth's magnetic field when they relieve themselves. What!
Fox News also reports that Saturn's rings are billions of years old.
Space.com has a fine gallery of photos of Saturn.
National Public Radio reports that the language we speak influences the way we think about the world in unexpected ways.
Wired reports on the pink fairy armadillo.


Image source (public domain)

Methodological Naturalism and Robert Boyle - does God create a vacuum, or is it a natural phenomenon?

Naturalism is, more or less, the idea that there is no supernatural, or, if there is, it doesn't do anything. It's what most people are upset about if they are upset about evolution.

Methodological naturalism is, more or less, the idea that we shouldn't look for supernatural explanations for ordinary events, including long-term events, or a long series of events. Some scientists who practice methodological naturalism are atheists. Some are not, claiming that God has created the universe such that certain processes occur without any further intervention being necessary. (I'll not discuss miracles, except to say that, by definition, they require supernatural intervention, and are mostly, or entirely, one-of-a-kind events.)

If there's a way to experimentally differentiate between natural causes and supernatural causes for, say, ice melting, I don't know what it is. It's always possible to claim that God was specifically at work in such a process, hence it was not natural, or not only natural.

Intelligent Design is the idea that, more or less, natural selection can't have been responsible for the development of living things, and the various processes within them, because natural selection is not capable of creating such processes or organisms by selection of random events. There are people who believe in Intelligent Design who believe that the earth is only a few thousand years old, and people who agree about Intelligent Design who believe that the earth is much older than that. (Intelligent Design is also a political movement, attempting to have ideas about God's creative power included in public school science classes. Not everyone who believes in Intelligent Design wants to do that.)

Michael Behe is the most prominent scientist claiming that God has acted many times, so as to produce intricate systems in living things. Most, or all, of Behe's examples of irreducible complexity have been refuted, as scientists have shown that his examples have a chain of natural selection events which could have produced them. This doesn't mean that Behe is entirely wrong, but the scientific evidence for Intelligent Design is slim, at best, according to Behe, himself.

Lest there be any doubt, I believe in a God who designed the universe, and either acts in many small ways, in nature, all the time, or made nature the way it is, so that change and complex phenomena could be possible. I also believe that the scientific evidence to prove, or disprove, God's activity is lacking, and that either conclusion requires faith. See Hebrews 11:3.
A recent post by the BioLogos Forum indicates that the question of whether a Christian scientist can be a methodological naturalist is pretty old. Robert Boyle -- the one Boyle's Law is named for -- died in 1691. The post, which is quite readable, and by a historian of science, indicates that Boyle believed that a vacuum could occur naturally, without supernatural intervention, but a contemporary begged to differ. Boyle was not only an important scientist, but definitely a Christian.

Read the post. Thanks for reading this!

Sunspots 438

Things I have spotted that may be of interest to someone else:

Christianity: The Skeptical Zone has an analysis of the Intelligent Design movement, with documentation, that claims that the Intelligent Design Movement is trying to establish a theocracy, or, as the article puts it, "totalitarianism."

A post, in the BioLogos Forum, from a man who discovered that, unfortunately, some people have lost their faith because they have been told that you can't believe that the earth is very old, and be a Christian, and who also discovered that it is possible to disagree over origins, and still love and respect fellow believers.
Computing: Wired says that we shouldn't keep our laptops plugged in all the time.
Politics: (and health) National Public Radio has published an on-line Obamacare calculator, which is supposed to calculate how much you will have to pay for health insurance, if you purchase your own.
Science: NBC News reports that a new island has been formed, off the coast of Pakistan, as the result of a volcano.
NASA has found evidence of clouds on a planet outside the solar system, according to the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.


Image source (public domain)
documentation, that claims that the Intelligent Design Movement is trying to establish a theocracy, or, as the article puts it, "totalitarianism."

Sunspots 427

Things I have recently spotted that may be of interest to someone else:
Christianity: Staci Johnson has a post on beliefs, and discusses the difference between a posture and a position.
Weekend Fisher considers Grace and the Trinity.
Henry Neufeld says that he is not an evolutionist, any more than he is a gravitationist.
Computing: Gizmo's Freeware has posted what they say is the best list of free security products in the world.
Philosophy: The Skeptical Zone discusses intelligence, as in Intelligent Design.
Science: Wired reports that the time of year when a baby is conceived (or born) influences how healthy the child will be.
National Public Radio reports on the ancestry of dogs. It turns out that some dogs in the Americas are mostly descended from dogs that were in the Americas before Europeans came here, bringing their own dogs.


Image source (public domain)

Isn't God a great artist?

I don't think it's original with me, but I sometimes place, in the description of a photo I post, such as those on Flickr, the question, "Isn't God a great artist?" (This is, I believe, the latest of these.)

God as artist

What do I mean by that? What should I mean? I wish to muse about these questions. First, some scripture:

Genesis 2:19 Out of the ground Yahweh God formed every animal of the field, and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. Whatever the man called every living creature became its name. 20 The man gave names to all livestock, and to the birds of the sky, and to every animal of the field; but for man there was not found a helper comparable to him. 21 Yahweh God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep. As the man slept, he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. 22 Yahweh God made a woman from the rib which had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. 23 The man said, “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh. She will be called ‘woman,’ because she was taken out of Man.” (all Bible quotations from World English Bible, public domain)

Isaiah 64:8 But now, Yahweh, you are our Father.

We are the clay, and you our potter.

We all are the work of your hand.

Leaving aside questions about how literally we are supposed to take these passages, the language indicates clearly that God can be described as an Artist, a Craftsman who takes existing ordinary material and does something wonderful with it.

Is God an artist? Of course. Orthodox Christian belief includes this:
We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty maker of heaven and earth,of all that is, seen and unseen. (Taken from a version of the Nicene Creed, 1975)

If God is Almighty, He clearly can be an Artist. If He is "maker of heaven and earth," then that required Him to be an artist, in the sense that He took, not "existing ordinary material," but nothing, and made a lot of something, wonderful something, from it. See the graphic at the top of this page for more about this question. Not only did God make things, but He sustains the universe -- see Colossians 1:16-17, and Hebrews 1:3 for part of the evidence for that.

Christians also usually believe that God is Omnipotent and Omniscient. Such a powerful Creator should, then, be able to design every leaf on every tree on earth, and every water ripple and dewdrop on earth, and every human face, individually, and to the finest detail. I suppose that human faces are altered by human activity, such as disease, emotions, bad nutrition, exposure to the sun, accidents, and, of course, makeup. But I believe that God could have designed each face, exercising complete control over its appearance. I'm not sure that God did, for reasons I hope to explain below. There are those who believe that not only could God have designed each face, but that He did, and that He is also in control of how each face changes as it matures and is exposed to the environment, including emotions and human activity.

Free will and randomness

We come, thus, to the question of free will, at least for humans. I'm not suggesting that leaves, water ripples and dewdrops have a will at all, free or not. But humans do, and I'm certainly not alone in believing so. If they do, part of what a human face looks like is because of choices that human has made, or that others have made affecting that person.

How about leaves and ripples? Although God created the universe, and sustains it now, it is possible that God's artistry is not so much expressed in His work in each leaf, ripple, or face, but in the creation of the laws that determine how things develop. For example, God could have created the universe in such a way that the Big Bang produced the elements with small nuclei, and in such a way that supernovae produce the elements with heavier nuclei. He could also have created the universe in such a way that Carbon atoms bind rather easily with Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen, Sulfur and Phosphorus so as to assemble the complex organic molecules that make life possible. Creation of a universe with laws and properties resulting in the way things are now would have been as great, or even greater, artistry than assembling each leaf, atom by atom.

God could also have built some randomness (or maybe a lot of it) into the universe. I have posted previously on this idea, asking "Is there such a thing as chance?" and on "God and Chance," here and yet again, and also on the idea of randomness at the subatomic level. Henry Neufeld, theologian, has also written about this subject. C. S. Lewis, on the other hand, had one of his best characters, Puddleglum, in The Silver Chair, say that "there are no accidents."

The fact is that we have no way of determining whether God controls all events in the universe, or whether he lets some of them be determined by the properties He has built in to the universe, or by those properties, plus chance. So God could have specially designed each and every leaf, and its changing fall colors, or God could have built laws and principles and properties into the universe which lead to the changing fall colors of each leaf, or God could also let random events, at the subatomic level, or higher, determine the appearance of such a leaf, over time. But, in all of these cases, God either controls or allows. If random processes produce a beautiful leaf, God be praised! If intricate control does, God be praised! God is a great artist.

An illustration of what Puddleglum said: While thinking about this subject, and preparing to write about it, I came upon a discussion of the artistry of Linnéa Spransy, who, she says, attempts to express "the tension between freedom and constraint" in her paintings. Spransy is a Christian. The post says this:

Like many working scientists, she is seeking a way of understanding how the creator engages with His creation, and a better grasp on how we creatures should make our way in response. On one hand, her attentiveness to the basic orderliness of the material creation has a corollary in the familiar disciplines of faith, including reading the scriptures, prayer, and responding with mercy to ruptures in human lives and communities. But on the other hand, her embrace of surprise and chaos is, as she says, an “invitation to the otherness of God,”. . .

You may wish to see my recent post on the use of the words, beauty and beautiful, in the Bible.

Thanks for reading, whether by chance or design.

An argument (theological, actually) against Intelligent Design

keiths has recently posted an article challenging Intelligent Design. In particular it challenges the idea that the similarities between organisms are not the result of evolution by natural selection, and common descent, but due to the use of a common design, or pattern, for several organisms, by a Designer.

keiths's challenge is basically this: Why should a Designer have been limited only to designs that mimic exactly the sorts of results we would expect if similarity were due to evolution from common ancestor(s) by natural selection? In other words, why should a Designer be a mimic of evolution, when there must have been many other ways to Design living things?

This is, at least in part, a theological argument, although keiths doesn't say so. (I have no knowledge of his personal beliefs, except that he is clearly not a fan of Intelligent Design or Young-Earth Creationism.) Why should God (assuming God to be the Designer, which most proponents of Intelligent Design do) have been constrained in this way, and, also, why should God have mimicked the results expected from common descent through natural selection? Why would God have done this, when doing so presented abundant evidence for descent from common ancestor(s) by natural selection, if such common descent didn't actually occur?

Good questions, I believe.

Thanks for reading. Read keiths's post, if you wish.

Falk on Dembski's response, continued

I have posted on a dialogue between William Dembski, a mathematician who is a prominent member of the Intelligent Design movement (ID) and Darrel Falk, president of BioLogos, an evolutionary creationist. The most recent post is here.

The dialog is continuing, and here's a post from Falk, which refers to a previous post by Dembski. I don't think this breaks any new ground, but thought I should post, to be more complete on this subject.

Thanks for reading.

Dembski and Falk: Is Darwinism Theologically Neutral, the critical issue

I have been posting on an exchange between William Dembski, one of the intellectual pillars of the Intelligent Design movement (ID) and Darrel Falk, President of the BioLogos Foundation, which may be characterized as an Evolutionary Creationist organization. Here is the latest previous post.

In the conclusion of his response to Dembski, Falk indicates that he agrees with Dembski about a great many things, and that Darwinism, as usually understood, is not theologically neutral. Falk and Dembski believe that humans are not here by accident, but because of a supernatural purpose.

But Falk does not agree with Dembski on all points.

Dembski wrote:
Given that science is widely regarded as our most reliable universal form of knowledge, the failure of science to provide evidence of God, and in particular Darwin’s exclusion of design from biological origins, undercuts (C2).

Dembski previously stated C2 thus, as one of his non-negotiables of Christianity: "The world reflects God’s glory, a fact that ought to be evident to humanity." (Falk agrees with that, by the way.)

Falk disagrees:
Given the way that God has worked through his regular natural activity, why should we expect to be able to develop a test for the activity of God?  God is always active, but scientific testing of God’s activity would require a “control” where God is not active.  How can we conduct an experiment which studies the “presence vs. absence of God” when God is always present as sustainer as well as creator?

There is more explanation of the disagreement than that, but that's the heart of it. I agree with Falk. Further, I believe that there is scriptural evidence to support his position. Hebrews 11:3 says "By faith, we understand that the universe has been framed by the word of God, so that what is seen has not been made out of things which are visible." (World English Bible, public domain) Not by experimental evidence, but by faith.

Thanks for reading. Read Falk and Dembski.

Dembski, Falk and Wood: Wood criticizes Intelligent Design

I have recently posted on an exchange between Darrel Falk, of the BioLogos Foundation, and William Dembski, one of the pillars of the Intelligent Design movement (ID) on the question of whether Darwinism is theologically neutral. This is the latest post in my series.

I also posted about what Todd Wood, a Young-Earth Creationist, had to say about the exchange. He has written more about the exchange, and he claims, in this latest post, that ID is pretty much without important content.

Thanks for reading. Read Wood.

Dembski and Falk: Is Darwin Theologically Neutral? Falk's position

There has recently been an exchange of views between some Southern Baptist theologians, and members of the BioLogos Foundation, on the question posed by the title. I have posted on the views of William Dembski, a Southern Baptist theologian, and a prominent member of the Intelligent Design movement (ID), expressed in two posts, which was published on the BioLogos blog, and on responses to those views, from Todd C. Wood, a young-earth creationist whose views I admire and respect, which were published independently on his own blog. The last post in this series was here. It has links to the previous posts, and related matters.

I now turn to the response of Darrel Falk, president of the BioLogos Foundation, whose views on origins are often called evolutionary creationism. Like Dembski, Falk first puts forth his own position. There is a second part to Falk's response, in which he sets forth some disagreement with Dembski, and I hope to muse about that at a later date.

Falk shares considerable common ground with Dembski. But he parts ways with him on the matter of God's activity. ID advocates argue that God's activity, in the development of living things, including humans, must have involved a number of supernatural, miraculous acts, and that, furthermore, in principle, it is possible for scientific analysis to show that such miraculous acts were necessary. Falk disagrees, in at least two important ways.

First, Falk does believe in the miraculous, events which are not explicable by science, not ordinary natural activity. (Christ's incarnation and resurrection are two such.) But he claims that God's activity is not usually what we would call miraculous, and, furthermore, that God's ordinary activity is necessary for the maintenance of the universe. He writes:

The Law of Gravity, for example, is not something that God set up in the beginning, thereafter recusing himself from further involvement and exiting from the scene. Instead, the Law of Gravity works as it does because of the ongoing activity of God’s Spirit in the universe. So consistent is that activity that it can be described mathematically through scientific analysis. If God ceased to be active, however, then not only would the matter of this universe no longer function in a way which enables a mathematical description of gravity, matter itself would cease to exist.

Falk goes on to say this:

Put another way, the activity of God is not restricted to that which we call the supernatural; it is all God’s activity. It is just that some aspects of God’s activity are so consistently repeatable that we can develop laws which describe the regularity of the divine activity which “holds” and “sustains” the universe. This latter type of activity is no less magnificent just because God does it continuously.

He cites Hebrews 1:3 and Colossians 1:17 in support of his position. (Unfortunately, he gives the reference as Colossians 1:16, not 1:17, but he quotes 1:17)

Second, Falk says that we are too prone to think miracles were necessary, when perhaps they weren't:

Given the many examples of supernatural activity in Scripture, we human beings tend to expect that for something as special as creation of stars or new species, supernatural activity would have been required. But we cannot derive this from the scriptural account and, therefore, it is wise not to second-guess how God might have worked based on the Scriptures. . . . When the Psalmist describes the heavens as being the work of his fingers (Psalm 8:3), this does not negate astronomy’s description of the regular and ongoing processes that give rise to stars in God’s universe. Those processes are natural, but they are every bit as much God’s activity as if he were to take huge balls of matter and miraculously fashion sparkling stars with his hands.

I believe that Falk is correct on these two points, and that I have been guilty of confusing miracles with ordinary activity at times. I wish that Dembski had responded to this post, but, as far as I know, he has not.

Thanks for reading. Read Falk.

Dembski, Falk and Wood: Is Darwinism Theologically Neutral, part 2

In a previous post, I referred to a debate on origins through posts to the BioLogos Forum's blog. William Dembski, a mathematician, philosopher and theologian, and a proponent of Intelligent Design, wrote a position paper, at the request of the BioLogos Forum. In it, he argued that Darwinism is not theologically neutral. Darrel Falk, an official of that Forum, and probably best classified as an evolutionary creationist, responded. Todd Wood, a young-earth creationist, also reacted, in his own blog. I consider Wood's response in this post.

I suppose that I ought to say that one can believe that God is intelligent, and a designer, or creator, without agreeing with all of the positions of the Intelligent Design movement. The ID movement argues that it should be possible to find scientific evidence that God not only created life, but there is what Michael Behe has called irreducible complexity -- there are processes, or structures, that are so complex that they could not have arisen by natural selection, but that God must have intervened during their development, if they arose over a long period of time. (Some ID advocates also believe that the earth is only a few thousand years old, but some are not convinced of that. See here for information on ID, and here for some contrasts between ID and young-earth creationism.) ID scientists have actually not really come close to proving scientific evidence of God's intervention. They have, instead, tried to show that natural selection couldn't have produced some structures, or processes. Behe and Dembski are tow of the most important scientists who have attempted this. Their work has been seriously criticized by other scientists, Christian and not.

Dembski's paper is in two parts, here and here. Falk's response is also in two parts, here and here. Wood's reaction is here and here.

I first repeat the heart of Dembski's presentation, what he says are four non-negotiables of Christianity, and four of Darwinism:

Non-Negotiables of Christianity:

• (C1) Divine Creation: God by wisdom created the world out of nothing.
• (C2) Reflected Glory: The world reflects God’s glory, a fact that ought to be evident to humanity.
• (C3) Human Exceptionalism: Humans alone among the creatures on earth are made in the image of God.
• (C4) Christ’s Resurrection: God, in contravention of nature’s ordinary powers, raised Jesus bodily from the dead.

Non-Negotiables of Darwinism:

• (D1) Common Descent: All organisms are related by descent with modification from a common ancestor.
• (D2) Natural Selection: Natural selection operating on random variations is the principal mechanism responsible for biological adaptations.
• (D3) Human Continuity: Humans are continuous with other animals, exhibiting no fundamental difference in kind but only differences in degree.
• (D4) Methodological Naturalism: The physical world, for purposes of scientific inquiry, may be assumed to operate by unbroken natural law. 

Wood has trouble with both sets of non-negotiables.Wood says that there is no mention of man's fallen, sinful nature, and that C2 and C3 are "weird." He thinks C3 is negotiable -- it is possible to believe we are in the image of God, and arose by evolutionary mechanisms. He also points out that there are differences among Christians as to what the image of God means, or is. On C2, he believes that it would be possible to believe that some aspects of creation were so ruined by the Fall that they don't reflect God's glory. Wood has even more trouble with the other four non-negotiables. He points out that Darwin, himself, was not convinced of D1 -- he thought there was more than one common ancestor. (Not thousands or milllions, by the way.) He goes on to say that D1, D2 and D3 are not so much presuppositions, as they are derived from evidence.

Wood also believes that Dembski has misunderstood methodological naturalism, D4, and confused it with philosophical naturalism:
Methodological naturalism is an epistemological position that recognizes reasonable limitations to human abilities to sense the supernatural. In other words, methodological naturalism is a limitation on what I think I can know. How can that possibly "tie God's hands?" A consistent methodological naturalist when confronted with Christ's resurrection (or any miracle) could only say that science is extremely limited in such cases to understand what happened or how. There is no way that methodological naturalism could rule out the miraculous. That's what philosophical naturalism does.
See here for the Wikipedia article on Naturalism, which includes a discussion of methodological naturalism.

Perhaps most importantly, Wood is familiar with the writings of Darwin, and although he doesn't claim that Darwin was a Christian believer, he believes, and presents evidence to back it up, that Darwin was, like Einstein, sympathetic to the view that there was a Creator. Wood quotes from a letter Darwin wrote:

I can see no reason, why a man, or other animal, may not have been aboriginally produced by other laws; & that all these laws may have been expressly designed by an omniscient Creator, who foresaw every future event & consequence. But the more I think the more bewildered I become; as indeed I have probably shown by this letter.

I hope to deal with Falk's reaction to Dembski in a later post. Thanks for reading.

Dembski and Falk: Is Darwinism Theologically Neutral?

The BioLogos forum has posted a position paper from William Dembski, on the subject of whether or not Darwinism is theologically neutral (he claims that it is not) as well as a response to Dembski from Darrel Falk. Dembski's paper is in two parts, here and here. Falk's is likewise in two parts, here and here. The BioLogos forum sets forth a list of 13 beliefs here. It is hard to imagine most Christians having any problem with those beliefs. However, quite a few have a problem with part of the opening statement, as follows: "committed to exploring and celebrating the compatibility of evolutionary creation and biblical faith, guided by the truth that 'all things hold together in Christ.' [Colossians 1:17]" Perhaps it's too simple, but the BioLogos forum team are often called evolutionary creationists. Dembski is one of the leading spokesmen of the Intelligent Design Movement, which rejects evolutionary creationism*. He has earned doctorates in mathematics and philosophy, and also advanced training in theology. Falk, who is President of BioLogos, is a biologist by training.

I found Dembski's writing to be respectful of Christians who disagree with him, and he seems to understand at least some of the thinking of such people.

In Dembski's part 1, he sets forth these non-negotiables:

Non-Negotiables of Christianity:

• (C1) Divine Creation: God by wisdom created the world out of nothing.
• (C2) Reflected Glory: The world reflects God’s glory, a fact that ought to be evident to humanity.
• (C3) Human Exceptionalism: Humans alone among the creatures on earth are made in the image of God.
• (C4) Christ’s Resurrection: God, in contravention of nature’s ordinary powers, raised Jesus bodily from the dead.

Non-Negotiables of Darwinism:

• (D1) Common Descent: All organisms are related by descent with modification from a common ancestor.
• (D2) Natural Selection: Natural selection operating on random variations is the principal mechanism responsible for biological adaptations.
• (D3) Human Continuity: Humans are continuous with other animals, exhibiting no fundamental difference in kind but only differences in degree.
• (D4) Methodological Naturalism: The physical world, for purposes of scientific inquiry, may be assumed to operate by unbroken natural law. 

At least some of these non-negotiables can be questioned. One question that occurred to me is in relation to C3. I would say that all creatures (and, for that matter, all rocks) are made in the image of God to some extent. They bear unmistakable marks of their creator. I would agree that humans are more in the image of God than any animals, or other organisms, or than any non-animate entities. It is possible that we may have computers or robots that are also more in the image of God than any animals, but we aren't there yet, and may never be. (See here and here for more about the idea of the image of God.)

His strategy is to explain how the two sets are in tension. He specifically avoids using "conflict," because he says that the languages of religion and science are different enough that it is difficult to know if you have found a real conflict.

Then, in part 2 of his essay, Dembski explains why he thinks that there are tensions, and which tensions are most important.

One tension, in Dembski's mind, at least, is that "it seems odd, given (C1), that God would create by Darwinian processes, which suggest that unguided forces can do all the work necessary for biological evolution." These unguided forces, if they are so important, are not evidence of God's wisdom, he says, nor do they reflect God's glory. (C2)

On the contrary, it seems to me that if there were a God who was able to create a universe, with properties such that unguided forces could bring about living things, in all their diversity, that would be strong evidence of His wisdom, and add to His glory. 

Dembski sees another problem. He says that "Francis Collins . . . denies that our moral capacities represent the natural development of the same essential capacities in other primates. Yet to say that our moral or cognitive or linguistic capacities are unprecedented in the rest of the animal world flies in the face of Darwinian evolution, certainly as Darwin conceived it." (Collins is a Christian, an author, and one of the most important scientists of our time. He is the founder of the BioLogos forum.)

I see what Dembski is talking about, but it seems to me that it could have been that God took some sort of pre-human, and, by miracle, installed those moral capacities. Also, it could be that the appearance of language, spoken and as thought, changed moral capacity by itself.

But Dembski also makes another important point. He claims that there is not sufficient evidence that natural selection can produce the complex structures we see in living things, and, thus, wonders why Darwinianism is important enough to examine. He writes ". . . the evidence for the creative power of natural selection to build complex biological forms is nil."This claim has been disputed at considerable depth, and some of the disputation is by Christian scientists who are convinced that natural selection can, and has, produced complex structures. In fact, there is a series, published by BioLogos, entitled  "Evolution and the Origin of Biological Information," which is reasonably accessible to the intelligent non-scientist, and refutes this claim of Dembski, and the ID movement, with examples. Here's a link to the final installment of that series. There are links to the other parts in that post.

As I write this, I have not read Falk's response to Dembski. I have read an important response to Dembski, by a Young-Earth Creationist, Todd Wood. I hope to post on what Falk and Wood have to say about Dembski soon.

Thanks for reading!

*There are several positions on origins among Bible-believing Christians. They include Intelligent Design, Young-Earth Creationism, and Evolutionary Creationism. See here for a summary, giving the weaknesses and strengths of these and other such beliefs.

Medical Students and evolution

There has been a fair amount of discussion, over the past few years, as to whether pre-medical students need to have some background in the basic ideas and theory of evolution. (For more on this, do a search on the phrase "medical student" combined with the word evolution.) Part of this discussion was generated by the story of a pre-med student who was a young-earth creationist, and was denied a recommendation to medical school by a faculty member.

The Panda's Thumb is a multi-author blog, with several contributors. The main thrust is against the Intelligent Design movement, and some of the posts have been strident and intolerant of Christianity in general, as well as of the ID movement. However, some posts do an excellent job of considering scientific evidence bearing on evolution, particularly as it relates to the scientific claims of the ID movement, and some authors seem to understand the concerns of Christians, and sympathize with them. The blog is required reading for anyone expecting to keep up with the Intelligent Design field. A post, a few years ago, by Jack Krebs, considered the question "Why should medical students study evolution?" I was impressed with the tone, and the content.

The author is, or has been, a high school teacher himself, and knows full well that, whatever the subject of a high school class, students won't retain all of it, and may never use the specific course material in their careers. He also knows that that shouldn't mean that students aren't taught anything, and that a few students really may use a lot of the material of some high school classes. (Speaking from experience, the same is certainly true of university classes!)

Although he doesn't define evolution -- an all too common problem with writing on the subject, from many different viewpoints -- he is sympathetic to the claims of religion, and indicates that he opposes a naturalistic world-view.

Krebs goes on to answer his question by including an actual example, where knowledge of the biochemistry, genetics and neurobiology of mice seems to offer some hope of treating bipolar disorders in humans. Almost certainly, if no one had looked at similarities between humans and mice, with a view to learning more about their similarities, this hope would not have been possible.

Krebs doesn't make a knock-down case, but it's a case, and should be pondered carefully by those who believe that studying similarities between organisms is not of use in the medical profession.