Thanks for your comment under my post, "Pierre Grasse and the `irreducible complexity' of the blood-clotting cascade" and my
[Above (click to enlarge): Coagulation and Fibrinolytic Pathways: James L. Holly M.D, SETMA:
"... The flow of blood to the organs in the body is critical to the survival of the individual and to the proper function of the body. If the blood is sluggish or tends to clot too fast, the body will suffer; if the blood is too `thin' or does not clot, the body will suffer. The balance between blood clotting and blood not clotting is one of the most critical balancing acts in the human body. The mechanisms which control those functions are complex ... too much blood clotting is bad but not enough clotting is also bad ... too much dissolving of blood clots ... is bad and too little dissolving of blood clots is bad ... the complex processes which continually take place in your body to make certain that your blood can flow to provide oxygen and nutrients to your cells and to make certain that your blood flow can be stopped if you are injured." (Holly, J.L., 2007, "Cardiometabolic Risk Syndrome Part V: Fibrinolytic Dysfunction").]
apologies for the delay in responding (due in part to my having gone back to university to become a biology teacher). As mentioned in my interim response to your comment, I started to respond to it also as a comment, but I then thought others might be interested in your question and my reply, but few would see either under a 2005 blog post. So I have decided to respond to your question in a separate blog post. I normally would change your personal identifying information if yours was a private email to me, but since it was a public comment under one of blog posts, there is no point me doing that. Your words are bold to differentiate them from mine.
---- Original Message -----
From: Kevin Eubanks
To: Stephen E. Jones,
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 6:37 AM
Subject: [CreationEvolutionDesign] New comment on Pierre Grasse and the `irreducible complexity' of ....
>Kevin Eubanks has left a new comment on your post "Pierre Grasse and the `irreducible complexity' of ...":
>
>I'm an English teacher in Texas, but I deal with the Intelligent Design issue in my courses.
This shows how insecure Darwinism (aka. atheistic evolution) is, that it cannot meet ID face-to-face in a science course, but must be protected from competition and criticism by `quarantining' ID in an English course! Students will rightly think among themselves, "what are the Darwinists afraid of?" If the Darwinists thought they had the truth, they would want to confront ID head on, as the founder of the ID Movement, Law Professor Phillip E. Johnson pointed out:
"It is the way the Darwinists argue their case that makes it apparent that they are afraid to encounter the best arguments against their theory. A real science does not employ propaganda and legal barriers to prevent relevant questions from being asked, nor does it rely on enforcing rules of reasoning that allow no alternative to the official story. If the Darwinists had a good case to make, they would welcome the critics to an academic forum for open debate, and they would want to confront the best critical arguments rather than to caricature them as straw men. Instead they have chosen to rely on the dishonorable methods of power politics." (Johnson, 2000, "The Wedge of Truth," p.141).
>This week, I had a student write an essay in support of Behe's argument that the blood clotting system is irreducibly complex.
[Right: Michael J. Behe, Ph.D. Professor of Biochemistry: Lehigh University, Bethlehem PA.]
nevertheless it may be the `tip of an iceberg' that the younger generation realise that ID makes good scientific sense. Since some of my readers may be new to the Darwinism vs Intelligent Design (ID) debate, I will explain that you are referring to Lehigh University biochemistry professor Michael J. Behe's claim that the vertebrate blood clotting cascade is irreducibly complex, i.e. it is a complex biological system that could not plausibly "be formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications" which Darwin admitted would cause his theory of evolution by natural selection to "absolutely break down":
"Darwin knew that his theory of gradual evolution by natural selection carried a heavy burden: `If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.' ... What type of biological system could not be formed by `numerous, successive, slight modifications'? Well, for starters, a system that is irreducibly complex ... a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts ... wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly ... by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system ... An irreducibly complex biological system ... would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution. ..." (Behe, M.J., 2006, "Darwin's Black Box," p.251).
>In trying to respond to her essay, I got stuck on one issue.
Since you are an English teacher and do not mention having any biology or other science qualification, you will be going beyond your field of expertise if you presume to critique the science of her essay. All you could legitimately do is comment on whether her argument and evidence is logically sound, i.e. whether her conclusions logically follow from her premises. As one who is now training to be a science teacher, you would be a poor teacher if you marked her down if she did not agree with your personal philosophy.
>If Behe believes in common descent, how does he explain the transition from a more "primitive" blood-clotting system (such as that of jawless fish) to the current one in humans? If, at some point in the past, the ancestor of humans had a different blood-clotting system, were the increasingly complex systems designed separately?
This shows a common error that even many (if not most) biologists make (including Darwin), confusing the relationship of common descent with a mechanism (one of many) by which that relationship is conserved, namely the Darwinian natural selection of random micromutations. But as Behe rightly points out, "EVIDENCE OF COMMON DESCENT IS NOT EVIDENCE OF NATURAL SELECTION" (his emphasis):
"... EVIDENCE OF COMMON DESCENT IS NOT EVIDENCE OF NATURAL SELECTION. Homologies among proteins (or organisms) are the evidence for descent with modification ... Natural selection, however, is a proposed explanation for how evolution might take place - its mechanism ... This, of course, is a well-known distinction ... Yet ... the distinction is often overlooked. Knowledge of homology ... is by itself insufficient to justify a claim that evolution of a particular complex system occurred by natural selection.." (Behe, 2000a, "In Defense of the Irreducibility of the Blood Clotting Cascade").
Behe's major claim is that his proposed examples of irreducible complexity are evidence that they did not arise by the Darwinian mechanism of the natural selection of "numerous, successive, slight modifications." He does not claim that the vertebrate blood-clotting system did not arise from a "more `primitive' blood-clotting system" as found in invertebrates and early vertebrates such as "jawless fish."
Darwin was well aware, as are modern Darwinists like Dawkins, that God could have intervened supernaturally at links in the chain of common descent, i.e. "miraculous additions at any one stage of descent," leaving the chain (and therefore the fact of universal common ancestry) intact:
"Darwin ... wrote .. `I would give nothing for the theory of Natural selection, if it requires miraculous additions at any one stage of descent.' ... This is no petty matter. In Darwin's view, the whole point of the theory of evolution by natural selection was that it provided a non-miraculous account of the existence of complex adaptations. ... For Darwin, any evolution that had to be helped over the jumps by God was not evolution at all." (Dawkins, 1986, "The Blind Watchmaker," pp.248-249).
Note that neither Darwin nor Dawkins denied that there could be supernatural intervention by God in the chain of common descent. Indeed, they both admitted that there could have been "miraculous additions at any one stage of descent." And they don't say that the theory of universal common ancestry would then be "rubbish" (see full quote below) if "evolution" was in that way "helped over the jumps by God. They say that Darwin's "theory of natural selection" would then be "rubbish," i.e. as a general theory of evolution and in particular an explanation of complex biological design. Darwin's theory of natural selection would still explain some aspects of microevolution, i.e. change at or below the species level.
Behe, as far as I know (I have been taking a break from the Darwinism vs ID debate so I might have missed or forgotten it), has not specified in his scientific writings how the Intelligent Designer (who he, like me, believes is the Christian God) did build Behe's claimed irreducibly complex systems like the blood clotting cascade. However, Behe has indicated elsewhere that he believes in `God-guided evolution':
"[Eugenie] Scott refers to me as an intelligent design `creationist,' even though I clearly write in my book `Darwin's Black Box' .. that I am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt common descent. In fact, my own views fit quite comfortably with the 40% of scientists that Scott acknowledges think `evolution occurred, but was guided by God.'" (Behe, 2000b, "Intelligent Design Is Not Creationism").
by which I assume he believes that instead of Darwinism's random, i.e. undirected mutations:
"There is a fifth respect in which mutation might have been nonrandom. ... a form of mutation that was systematically biased in the direction of improving the animal's adaptedness to its life. ... It is only in this fifth respect, the 'mutationist' respect, that the true, real-life Darwinian insists that mutation is random. Mutation is not systematically biased in the direction of adaptive improvement, and no mechanism is known ... that could guide mutation in directions that are non-random in this fifth sense. Mutation is random with respect to adaptive advantage ... It is ... only selection, that directs evolution in directions that are nonrandom with respect to advantage." (Dawkins, 1986, Ibid., p.312).
the Intelligent Designer (God) supernaturally directed mutations to build irreducibly complex designs. This is basically my position, except I agree with Dawkins that "any evolution that had to be helped over the jumps by God was not evolution at all." (Dawkins, 1986, Ibid, p.249) but rather, "guided evolution" is a form of "divine creation"!
"But there are other theories that are most definitely not versions of Darwinism ... These rival theories ... include ... creationism ... divine creation, whether instantaneous or in the form of guided evolution, joins the list of other theories we have considered in this chapter." (Dawkins, 1986, Ibid, pp.287, 316-317).
>From personal experience, I know how busy you must be! But any help you could offer would be greatly appreciated.
I hope this has helped and was in time for your marking of this student's paper. By the way, you could email Professor Behe direct at his email address on his Lehigh University page) and ask him personally what his answer is.
Stephen E. Jones, BSc. (Biology).
My other blogs: TheShroudofTurin & Jesus is Jehovah!
"The predicament is easily resolved when a critical point is recalled: EVIDENCE OF COMMON DESCENT IS NOT EVIDENCE OF NATURAL SELECTION. Homologies among proteins (or organisms) are the evidence for descent with modification - that is, for evolution. Natural selection, however, is a proposed explanation for how evolution might take place - its mechanism - and so must be supported by other evidence if the question is not to be begged. This, of course, is a well-known distinction (Mayr 1991). Yet, from reviewers' responses to my book, the distinction is often overlooked. Knowledge of homology is certainly very useful, can give us a good idea of the path of descent, and can constrain our hypotheses. Nonetheless, knowledge of the sequence, structure, and function of relevant proteins is by itself insufficient to justify a claim that evolution of a particular complex system occurred by natural selection. Gene duplication is not a Darwinian explanation because duplication points only to common descent, not to the mechanism of evolution." (Behe, M.J. , 2000a, "In Defense of the Irreducibility of the Blood Clotting Cascade: Response to Russell Doolittle, Ken Miller and Keith Robison," Discovery Institute, July 31. Uppercase emphasis Behe's).
"[Eugenie] Scott refers to me as an intelligent design `creationist,' even though I clearly write in my book `Darwin's Black Box' (which Scott cites) that I am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt common descent. In fact, my own views fit quite comfortably with the 40% of scientists that Scott acknowledges think `evolution occurred, but was guided by God.' Where I and others run afoul of Scott and the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) is simply in arguing that intelligent design in biology is not invisible, it is empirically detectable. The biological literature is replete with statements like David DeRosier's in the journal `Cell': `More so than other motors, the flagellum resembles a machine designed by a human' [DeRosier, D.J., "The Turn of the Screw: The Bacterial Flagellar Motor," Cell, Vol. 93, 1998, p.17]. Exactly why is it a thought-crime to make the case that such observations may be on to something objectively correct?" (Behe, M.J., 2000b, "Intelligent Design Is Not Creationism," Science, dEbate, 7 July).
"Darwin knew that his theory of gradual evolution by natural selection carried a heavy burden: `If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.' [Darwin, C.R., 1872, "Origin of Species," 6th ed., 1988, New York University Press: New York NY, p.154]. It is safe to say that most of the scientific skepticism about Darwinism in the past century has centered on this requirement. From Mivart's concern over the incipient stages of new structures to Margulis's dismissal of gradual evolution, critics of Darwin have suspected that his criterion of failure had been met. But how can we be confident? What type of biological system could not be formed by `numerous, successive, slight modifications'? Well, for starters, a system that is irreducibly complex. By irreducibly complex, I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution. Since natural selection can only choose systems that are already working then if a biological system cannot be produced gradually it would have to arise as an integrated unit, in one fell swoop, for natural selection to have anything to act on." (Behe, M.J., 2006, "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution," [1996], Free Press: New York NY, Tenth Anniversary Edition, p.251).
"Darwin ... wrote in a letter to Sir Charles Lyell, the leading geologist of his day: `If I were convinced that I required such additions to the theory of natural selection, I would reject it as rubbish...I would give nothing for the theory of Natural selection, if it requires miraculous additions at any one stage of descent.' [Darwin, C.R., Letter to C. Lyell, October 11, 1859, in Darwin, F., ed., "The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin," [1898], Basic Books: New York NY, Vol. II., 1959, reprint, pp.6-7]. This is no petty matter. In Darwin's view, the whole point of the theory of evolution by natural selection was that it provided a non-miraculous account of the existence of complex adaptations. For what it is worth, it is also the whole point of this book. For Darwin, any evolution that had to be helped over the jumps by God was not evolution at all." (Dawkins, R., 1986, "The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design," W.W Norton & Co: New York NY, pp.248-249).
"There is a fifth respect in which mutation might have been nonrandom. We can imagine (just) a form of mutation that was systematically biased in the direction of improving the animal's adaptedness to its life. But although we can imagine it, nobody has ever come close to suggesting any means by which this bias could come about. It is only in this fifth respect, the 'mutationist' respect, that the true, real-life Darwinian insists that mutation is random. Mutation is not systematically biased in the direction of adaptive improvement, and no mechanism is known (to put the point mildly) that could guide mutation in directions that are non-random in this fifth sense. Mutation is random with respect to adaptive advantage, although it is non-random in all sorts of other respects. It is selection, and only selection, that directs evolution in directions that are nonrandom with respect to advantage." (Dawkins, 1986, p.312).
"But there are other theories that are most definitely not versions of Darwinism, theories that go flatly against the very spirit of Darwinism. These rival theories are the subject of this chapter. They include various versions of what is called Lamarckism; also other points of view such as 'neutralism', 'mutationism' and creationism which have, from time to time, been advanced as alternatives to Darwinian selection. The obvious way to decide between rival theories is to examine the evidence. ... In short, divine creation, whether instantaneous or in the form of guided evolution, joins the list of other theories we have considered in this chapter." (Dawkins, 1986, pp.287, 316-317).
"Fibrinolysis is the function of the body which helps regulate blood clotting. When a clot begins to be formed a series of steps takes place which prevents the completion of the forming of the clot. This protective function prevents heart attacks, strokes and other cardiovascular incidents. Excessive blood clotting - thrombosis - is caused by a decrease in the fibrinolytic activity of elements of the blood and this is called `fibrinolytic dysfunction.' As we are learning, the cardiometabolic risk syndrome is associated with many abnormalities and one of the most common is an increased tendency for the blood to form clots. The flow of blood to the organs in the body is critical to the survival of the individual and to the proper function of the body. If the blood is sluggish or tends to clot too fast, the body will suffer; if the blood is too `thin' or does not clot, the body will suffer. The balance between blood clotting and blood not clotting is one of the most critical balancing acts in the human body. The mechanisms which control those functions are complex. The ... diagram shows the complex relationships which control the balance between blood clotting - which is called `thrombus' - and blood not clotting - which is called `fibrinolysis.' The reality is that too much blood clotting is bad but not enough clotting is also bad. On the other hand, too much dissolving of blood clots (fibrinolysis) is bad and too little dissolving of blood clots is bad. It is not necessary for you to learn or even to understand all of these steps. What is necessary is for you to have a mental picture of the complex processes which continually take place in your body to make certain that your blood can flow to provide oxygen and nutrients to your cells and to make certain that your blood flow can be stopped if you are injured." (Holly, J.L., 2007, "Cardiometabolic Risk Syndrome Part V: Fibrinolytic Dysfunction," Your Life Your Heath - The Examiner, January 11).
"In the final analysis, it is not any specific scientific evidence that convinces me that Darwinism is a pseudoscience that will collapse once it becomes possible for critics to get a fair hearing. It is the way the Darwinists argue their case that makes it apparent that they are afraid to encounter the best arguments against their theory. A real science does not employ propaganda and legal barriers to prevent relevant questions from being asked, nor does it rely on enforcing rules of reasoning that allow no alternative to the official story. If the Darwinists had a good case to make, they would welcome the critics to an academic forum for open debate, and they would want to confront the best critical arguments rather than to caricature them as straw men. Instead they have chosen to rely on the dishonorable methods of power politics." (Johnson, P.E., 2000, "The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism," Intervarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, p.141).
I'm not a biologist. I'm a chemical engineer who reads Packer and Proust. But a few months ago I saw the great joust on PBS over irreducible complexity in Pennsylvania. Judging from the minutiae under discussion, the discussion seemed less relevant compared to the superior attitudes shown by the so-called scientists. So I took it upon myself to read a good bit of Dobzhansky and Darwin (Origin of the Species) in order tho try and learn what made these scientists so pontifically wise.
ReplyDeleteI mention Packer and Proust for a reason (besides enjoying them). First Proust. After reading 150 tedious pages of the description of a soiree (Guermantes) it became clear that everyone's sense of social worth turned on who their imaginary ancestors were. A whole system of hereditary titles, purchased or awarded in the previous century, was the raison d'etre for this wealthy (and useless) segment of the bourgeoisie. Your importance hinged on who your grandmother was. I see this as a mirror of the irreducible complexity debate, and just as loaded with pontification and superior attitude. In the greater sense what does it matter? On the one hand, selection occurs. It's the basis of agriculture as we know it. But it's in the past, and there's nothing useful gained in debating it, that I can see. On the other hand, what makes Darwin worthy of such laud and honor?
Now for Packer. I'm in the middle of reading his PhD thesis on Baxter. I often see Baxter seeking a unity - trying to reconcile the incongruities of Calvinism (such as double predestination making God the author of evil), or trying to thread a line between Antinomianism and legalism. Controversial in his time, tremendously well educated, yet bound to overreach. A hundred years later what he did was forgotten in the details, but remembered in a holistic sense, and he became a touchstone for both Wesleyans and Unitarians. I see similar overreaching with Darwinism, as well as that halo effect a century after. Darwin's Origin of Species collection of animal stories implies evolution in a macro sense. This is what launched Jack London and Adolph Hitler, and it carries the poison of racism. Yet all this detail is forgotten, and Darwin has now become a friendly bust in the bourgeois "scientist's" library. He is given credit for scientific advances in genetics and biology which occurred in spite of him (Dobzhansky points out that he was generally discarded as useful to science by 1900, and is immortalized in the selection coefficient named for him).
So what hath Darwinism (aka Origin of Species) wrought? Death camps, gulags, modern racisms, World War 2, etc. - in short, a collection of nihilisms. While it is claimed now that Darwinism answers everything (and it goes without saying that those nihilisms should be ignored for the sake of polite conversation with the "scientists"), in reality it answers nothing. I'm happier with what Christ has wrought: hospitals, an end to slavery, literacy and schools, etc. And always hope.
Mr. Jones,
ReplyDeleteSince there are more mechanisms than mutations(and the great majority of mutations are deleterious), why discuss only mutations?
I guess you kept it restricted to Behe's material from 2000. But did his latest book stay so narrowly focused on mutations as a solution?
Today, even militant Darwinist have given up on RM&NS as the sole mechanism for change over time, some(Prof MacNeil-Cornell) declaring it dead. Even Modern Synthesis is in trouble many admit. They now look to Horizontal Gene Transfer(HGT) and EndoSymbiosis to be their savior. Yet, if this is true, forget tracing back the past life history with such mechanisms that are not "gradual."
The word "mutation" seems weak as a definition today to me. As a method for adapting/guiding new novel features it is only one mechanism among many. Guided, FrontLoaded Variation and Macro Changes I agree are discussed as "mutations" technically, but due to scientific findings over the last 10-20yrs, with DNA as Code, biology as an Information Science is coming on strong.
See recent research by Bill Gates/Italy team, treating BioEntities as Programs.
The word Mutation seems so antiquated and vague for a Directed, Guided or FrontLoaded system that is Programmable. I realize scientist must be careful what they say in research.
Micro-Variation is a known quality and quantity. Mutation occurs, turning off bits, etc., allowing bacteria to survive, or humans, like in the case of Malaria(some of Behe's recent work). In Behe's most recent work, he challenges the mutation rate or I should say, the threshold for new novel functions. I'm curious if you consider it an obstacle for Common Descent through a handsoff approach? Or, are you thinking Behe believes it is guided and intervention takes place?
Macro-Variation for a sustained Build-up in quality and complexity however is an unknown today. Fossil records tell an incomplete story. We are not able to trace "mutations" for such novel processes and genetic changes overtime. They guess about phyla, only to have it change based upon different cluster of genes.
In most peoples minds.. Mutant, Mutate, Mutations are not perceived well. It still keeps it in the Darwinian Paradigm. Of some unguided accidental process whereby NS takes over.
I have noticed Facillitated Variation is moving among the secular scientist as an alternative to ID. Interesting. It is essentially the Secular Guided version of evolution.
From all I've read, mutations do not distinguish between CORE areas for different phyla either based upon Function or Purpose. So, RM can cause extinction, high rates of disease and breakdown as well if not for highly conserved processes that repair, protect and detect errors to DNA.
Jumping to new topic. We now have the latest study from Oregon, secular scientist confirming what "Creationist" and some IDist have said for some time about Dino-Bird relations. There is none.
Yet for how long did someone say mutations led from Dinos - to - Birds?
What if there are CORE processes that never change over time? But the random mutations are only deleterious and a sign of Genetic Entropy, as hypothesized by Dr. Sanford, Geneticist, TransGenic Inventor of the Gene Gun from Cornell?
Curious about your thoughts. Good luck with your new direction and teaching degree!
DATCG
ReplyDelete>why discuss only mutations?
Mutations is the generic name for ALL types of genetic change.
>Today, even militant Darwinist have given up on RM&NS as the sole mechanism for change over time
If that were REALLY true, then Darwinism would have been defeated, and so could not be cited as a defeater of the Argument from Biological Design.
But it is just the typical Darwinist `scorched earth policy' to APPEAR to abandon the natural selection of random micromutations (NSRMi) in the face of criticism, only to take it up again when the critic has gone:
"Manipulation of the terminology also allows natural selection to appear and disappear on command. When unfriendly critics are absent, Darwinists can just assume the creative power of natural selection and employ it to explain whatever change or lack of change has been observed. When critics appear and demand empirical confirmation, Darwinists can avoid the test by responding that scientists are discovering alternative mechanisms, particularly at the molecular level, which relegate selection to a less important role. The fact of evolution therefore remains unquestioned, even if there is a certain amount of healthy debate about the theory. Once the critics have been distracted, the Blind Watchmaker can reenter by the back door. Darwinists will explain that no biologist doubts the importance of Darwinian selection, because nothing else was available to shape the adaptive features of the phenotypes." (Johnson, P.E., "Darwin on Trial," 1993, pp.153-154).
>Good luck with your new direction and teaching degree!
Thanks.
Stephen E. Jones
the Intelligent Designer (God) supernaturally directed mutations to build irreducibly complex designs. This is basically my position
ReplyDeleteAs a Christian, the only problem I see with yours and Behe's understanding is, it isn't in the Scriptures, which puts you on dangerous ground, possibly denying the first fundamental of the faith; inerrancy. What scriptures give you the idea God used evolution?
ReplyDelete>Our Founding Truth
Thanks for your comment.
>the Intelligent Designer (God) supernaturally directed mutations to build irreducibly complex designs. This is basically my position
>As a Christian, the only problem I see with yours and Behe's understanding is
First, my position is not exactly the same as Behe's. He calls his position "God-guided evolution" whereas I call my position "Progressive Mediate Creation" (PMC). I disagree with Behe that God supernaturally directing mutations is evolution. It is creation.
>it isn't in the Scriptures,
I disagree. The Bible with its "earth brought forth" plants (Gn 1:11) and animals (Gn 1:24) and man (Gn 2:7) in Genesis 1-2 indicates that God supernaturally directed and guided natural materials and processes as His method of creation.
See also my "Why I (a Creationist) Accept Common Ancestry (Not Evolution)."
>which puts you on dangerous ground, possibly denying the first fundamental of the faith; inerrancy.
I don't deny Biblical inerrancy. I accept it since the Bible claims it of itself in Jn 10:35; 17:17; Rom 3:1-2; 2Tim 3:15-17; 2Pet 1:20-21 etc. But I don't agree with your interpretation of the Bible if you claim that God did not supernaturally direct and guide natural materials and processes in creating.
And I also don't agree that "inerrancy" is "the first fundamental of the faith." I agree with the the Bible that what is "of first importance is "that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day ..." (1Cor 15:3-4).
>What scriptures give you the idea God used evolution?
I don't claim that "God used evolution" (see above). I claim what the Bible teaches (see above) that God supernaturally used natural materials and processes as His method of creation.
Stephen E. Jones
A targeted search- ie designed to evolve/ evolved by design- fits UCD in with the design frame-work.
ReplyDeleteJoe G
ReplyDelete>A targeted search- ie designed to evolve/ evolved by design- fits UCD in with the design frame-work.
Agreed. But then, as I state above, to paraphrase Dawkins, "a targeted search," i.e. that is directed towards a goal "would not be evolution" but rather a form of "divine creation":
"... I agree with Dawkins that "any evolution that had to be helped over the jumps by God was not evolution at all." (Dawkins, 1986, Ibid, p.249) but rather, "guided evolution" is a form of "divine creation"!
I presume you agree with that, going by your blog: "Intelligent Reasoning: Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning"?
Stephen E. Jones
@ Tom Quick: you said, "I'm happier with what Christ has wrought: hospitals, an end to slavery, literacy and schools, etc. And always hope."
ReplyDeleteChrist didn't invent hospitals. Christians didn't invent hospitals. If the New Testament miracle accounts are to be believed, Christ and his apostles had no need for hospitals - a simple word was usually enough.
Slavery was endorsed by several Christian faiths, and in fact caused a split between the north and south in the cases of the American Baptists, Methodists and Presbyterians. And the Old Testament Judeo-Christian God, who is - according to his followers - constant and unchanging, also endorsed slavery.
And I believe it was the Greeks, and before that the Egyptians, who laid down the basis of literacy and classical education, not Jesus.
James
ReplyDelete>@ Tom Quick: you said, "I'm happier with what Christ has wrought: hospitals, an end to slavery, literacy and schools, etc. And always hope."
>
>Christ didn't invent hospitals. Christians didn't invent hospitals. ...
Thanks for your comment.
It reminded me that I have yet to respond to Tom Quick's comments of May 2009!
I will respond to both his and your comments in separate posts to this my CED blog, i.e. not as comments down here under a May 2009 post that few may read any more.
However, I have other things to do, including posts to my other two blogs, Jesus is Jehovah! and The Shroud of Turin, so it may be in a week or two.
Stephen E. Jones
ReplyDeleteJames
>@ Tom Quick: you said, "I'm happier with what Christ has wrought: hospitals, an end to slavery, literacy and schools, etc. And always hope."
I didn't say it, Tom Quick did, who I don't know and whose views I don't necessarily entirely agree with.
And I have now responded to his comments at "Re: Baxter, Darwin, predestination, damnation, etc."
>Christians didn't invent hospitals. ...
Sorry, but on reflection I don't want to get into defending the comments of others under my blog posts.
I will however respond in a separate post, hopefully in the near future, to your comment about Pascal's Wager under my other post: "What I believe about Creation, Evolution and Design."
Stephen E. Jones