Re: Progressive Creation & common descent #2

Craig (copy to my blog, CreationEvolutionDesign, as agreed).

Thanks for the opportunity to comment on your draft paper, Similarities and Differences between Old-Earth Views: Progressive Creation & Evolutionary Creation . I will comment [bold and in square brackets] only on those sections that mention me ... .

[Continued from part #1]

Scientific Evidence for Common Descent
Peter Ruest says, "The strongest evidence for common descent of different species consists of shared errors, like certain mobile genetic elements inserted at exactly corresponding positions in their DNAs. ... As a consequence of the extensive genome sequencing efforts of the last few years, the 'fact of evolution," which has been touted for almost one hundred fifty years without stringent support, now at last has become virtually incontrovertible. (Sep 2005 in PSCF, not yet available on the web)"
Dick Fischer: "It is one thing to suggest that God may have modeled our DNA along the same lines as lower animals, such that similarities are due to like genes ordering a protein sequence serving a like function. It is quite another to assert that God also incorporated all the excess nonfunctioning baggage. (source available later)" [The source and quote is on my page, "Why I (a Creationist) Accept Common Ancestry " page, under "Evidence and arguments that lead me to accept common ancestry ," "Vitamin C pseudogene ":

"An examination of the human DNA molecule, the genetic blueprint of man, shows that many of the same sorts of genes and gene sequences are found in lower animals. Some creationists would say this is not surprising. Since man has many of the same physiological functions as lower animals, our DNA naturally would carry comparable information. Thus the argument has been made that any resemblances in DNA mean only that God used similar gene sequences to order similar functions. Although there may be a commonality of design, as the argument goes, that does not prove common descent. ... The case for common design but no common descent becomes suspect when the entire human DNA sequence is analyzed, and copying errors are found in the same places in the DNA of non-humans. In addition to genes that function normally, we have nonfunctioning genes as well, called `pseudogenes.' Our DNA sequence is a complicated set of instructions that appears to have a long history of replications, and therefore contains an abundance of pseudogenes. Humans have pseudogenes incorporated along the entire DNA sequence that can also be found in other animals, i.e., the chimpanzee and gorilla. It is one thing to suggest that God may have modeled our DNA along the same lines as lower animals, such that similarities are due to like genes ordering a protein sequence serving a like function. It is quite another to assert that God also incorporated all the excess nonfunctioning baggage too ." (Fischer, D., "The Origins Solution: An Answer in the Creation-Evolution Debate ," Fairway Press: Lima OH, 1996, pp.64-65)]

Stephen Jones: With progressive independent creations, "'God also incorporated all the excess nonfunctioning baggage' in each separate creation from scratch, to deliberately create an appearance of descent, that never actually happened. But this is the same `appearance of age' problem of Philip Gosse's Omphalos , which claimed (in effect) that each separate creation, object bore false witness to past processes, which had never taken place. (from Section 8)" {more about Creation with Appearance of Age} Evidence for common descent "is a tie-breaker between the two possible creationist/intelligent design positions: design without descent, i.e. separate ex nihilo and de novo creations; and design with descent (or descent with design), i.e. mediate creations." [I later added under the same "Vitamin C pseudogene " heading, this quote by the late Colin Patterson, which points out that "in tracing the texts of ancient authors, the best evidence that two versions are copies one from another or from the same original is when both contain the same errors":

"Darwin could not possibly have predicted that the hereditary material (of which he knew nothing) would turn out to be littered with ... meaningless repeated sequences like the shared Alu sequences in apes and humans ... An interesting argument is that in the law courts (where proof `beyond reasonable doubt' is required), cases of plagiarism or breach of copyright will be settled in the plaintiff's favour if it can be shown that the text (or whatever) is supposed to have been copied contains errors present in the original. Similarly, in tracing the texts of ancient authors, the best evidence that two versions are copies one from another or from the same original is when both contain the same errors. A charming example is an intrusive colon within a phrase in two fourteenth-century texts of Euripides: one colon turned out to be a scrap of straw embedded in the paper, proving that the other text was a later copy. Shared pseudogenes, or shared Alu sequences, may have the same significance - like shared misprints they can have come about only by shared descent." (Patterson, C., "Evolution ," [1978], Cornell University Press: Ithaca NY, Second edition, 1999, p.117).

With progressive creation by modification, a new species is created by genetic modification but most of the original genetic material is not modified, and the parent/offspring relationships are retained. This is consistent with evidence for common descent - such as a shared genetic code (in most species), structures that seem vestigial, homologous structures (like bat wings, whale flippers, dog paws, and panda thumbs) that seem to be "variations on a theme" derived from previously existing structures, similarities in gene sequences (ranging from essential developmental genes to nonfunctional pseudogenes) in different species, and "molecular clock" correlations - that is often claimed as evidence against progressive creation. With independent creations, sometimes there might be a logical reason for a designer to re-use functional components (including genes) from an existing organism in a newly created organism. But in most cases, especially with pseudogenes and genetic errors, a more plausible explanation is a history of common descent, which is consistent with either natural evolution or progressive creation by modification. [Agreed. I distinguish between Progressive (Fiat) Creation, as advocated by Hugh Ross, where `basic kinds' are created ex nihilo (out of nothing) or de novo (new, out of existing material with no genealogical continuity); and Progressive (Mediate) Creation, where all taxa (in the Bible the original Hebrew word min which is translated "kind," - e.g. Genesis 1:11-12,21,24 - has the same broad meaning as "kind" has in English, and can therefore correspond to any taxonomic category, from species upwards) are created (either naturally or supernaturally) by modification, and therefore out of existing material with genealogical continuity.

I obtained the term from this quote of the great 19th century evangelical Presbyterian theologian, Charles Hodge (a contemporary of Darwin and perhaps his greatest theologian critic), who distinguished between an "immediate creation," where "God created the universe out of nothing by the word of his power, which creation was instantaneous" and a "mediate , progressive creation," where God "form[ed] out of preexisting material" and "working in union with second causes":

"Mediate and Immediate Creation. But while it has ever been the doctrine of the Church that God created the universe out of nothing by the word of his power, which creation was instantaneous and immediate, i. e., without the intervention of any second causes; yet it has generally been admitted that this is to be understood only of the original call of matter into existence. Theologians have, therefore, distinguished between a first and second, or immediate and mediate creation. The one was instantaneous, the other gradual; the one precludes the idea of any preexisting substance, and of cooperation, the other admits and implies both. There is evident ground for this distinction in the Mosaic account of the creation. ... It thus appears that forming out of preexisting material comes within the Scriptural idea of creating. ... There is, therefore, according to the Scriptures, not only an immediate, instantaneous creation ex nihilo by the simple word of God, but a mediate, progressive creation; the power of God working in union with second causes." (Hodge, C., "Systematic Theology ," [1892], James Clark & Co: London, Vol. I, 1960, reprint, pp.556-557. Emphasis original)]

A theory proposing creations by genetic modification (instead of independent creations) increases the credibility of questions about naturalistic evolution:
In Logical Principles for Evaluating Evolutions I explain that "full common descent is only one component of naturalistic evolution, which could be false even if common descent was true... because a discontinuity in descent is only one of several possible ways that evolution might be false. ... Logical scientific evaluation provides support for the plausibility of a full common descent, so arguing against descent is counter-productive (in building a case for design) because this will focus attention on aspects of biology where the evidence is consistent with neo-Darwinian theory, and will distract attention from important questions - about rates of change, irreducible complexity,... - where evidence indicates that a theory of 100%- Natural Total Macro-E may be incorrect."

Stephen Jones, consistent with logical principles of evaluation, says: "I have myself found from a decade of debating evolutionists, that what really rattles them is a creationist like me who accepts common ancestry (the strongest part of their position), and challenges that it was always and everywhere a fully naturalistic mechanism (the weakest part of their position)." [Agreed. This is consistent with the evolutionists' antagonism to Behe, even though he accepts common ancestry. On a personal note, after I accepted common ancestry in 1995 , it made no difference to the evolutionists-they still regarded me as a creationist, as I did myself.]

[Continued in part #3]

Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol).
`Evolution Quotes Book'