PM>Similarly from evolutionary perspective this makes perfectly good
>sense but it does not require additional constraints. Occam's razor
>applies once again in favour of the more simple explanation.
SJ: Please make up your mind. You claim that "the flounder presents an
excellent example of evolution in action" but "shows some poor design
if an intelligent designer were involved". I then show that it is a
"excellent example" of flexible design, and then finding your
argument fails, you invoke "Occam's razor". Since you could have
invoke "Occam's razor" from the beginning (and thus ruling out
intelligent design apriori), which is it to be? "Occam's razor" or
"poor design'?
Both. It depends on your argument. The flounder shows evidence of poor
design but if you want to use the argument that it shows flexible design
to save your thesis then Occam applies.
>SJ>The latter would design each fish for a specific purpose. But the
>real Intelligent Designer built an all-purpose fish genome that had
>the resources within it to respond to environmental changes and new
>ecological niches that would open up in the future.
PM>Huraah, we agree on one thing that evolution is taking place. We
>just disagree on the necessity of an intelligent designer for this
>to happen.
SJ: No. We don't agree that it's not "evolution...taking place" at all.
*You* believe it is "evolution". *I* believe it is *Mediate
Creation*.
The creator created a fish genome allowing it to adapt to environmental
changes and ecological niches. You claim this to be mediate creation for
which no evidence exists, I claim that such is explained by the inherent
ability of genetic information to mutate and be selected for.
Whether or not at the beginning there was a creator is irrelevant for the
process of evolution and from a scientific viewpoint cannot even be
addressed since it fails the tests of scientific hypothesis.
PM>If I were an all powerful god then I would design my creatures to
>be well-adapted and would not use different designs to optimize for
>different circumstances. Why go for a design which is sub-optimal
>if I have the potential to make the design perfect?
SJ: Why not? An "all powerful" God is not obliged to make everything
perfect. The Bible nowhere claims He has. And I have given good
reasons why God might create "sub-optimal" design previously.
I am impressed, you believe in an all powerful god but when confronted
with sub-optimal design you claim that there was no reason for god to
design well.
Sounds like a hypothesis which cannot be proven wrong.
SJ: Moreover, God is not obliged to use all his omnipotence:
How convenient.... But not very convincing.
>SJ>It is not certain that this is a "problem", at least not to
>mammals generally. I have read somewhere that much, if not all, the
>prostate problem in humans is due to our fatty diet. If God
>originally intended Adam's descendants to be vegetarian, this may
>have prevented the problem (Gn 1:30; 9:3).
PM>So god did not predict this change in diets?
SJ: I cannot see how you get this. If Adam sinned, God "predicted" that
Adam would die: "but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge
of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." (Gn
2:17)
Quite simple you claim that the change in diet caused the problems, if god
had been able to foresee this why would he have used such a suboptimal
design ?
PM>But your assertion that the prostate needs to have an selective
>advantage is mistaken. Evolution does not require disappearance of
>features if they do not have a selective advantage.
SJ: That's correct. "Evolution does not require" anything!
Perhaps you would like to re-read my response and realize that I did not
say this ? Nor do you address my remark.
PM>Perhaps? But that requires some additional data supporting such
>assertion. Absence of such data makes such speculation meaningless
>since it can be invoked to explain any discrepancy.
SJ: I'm glad you say this, because the above could just as easily be an
*evolutionary* argument - indeed it probably is.
Is it ? But that does not solve your problem now does it ? If you believe
it to be a poor argument why use it ?
>SJ>In any event, Biblically, man was made with a potentially mortal body
>(Gn 3:22), so that if he did not chose obedience He would die (Gn
>2:17). If God made man's body perfect, man could not die, even if he
PM>Darn, all I need is obedience and I my body will live? Has this
>been tested?
SJ: "Biblically" it's too late now. Adam was our representative. When
he disobeyed God, he forfeited immortality, and therefore so did all
his descendants. But "Biblically" if you believe in Jesus Christ,
the second Adam (Rom 5:14ff; 1Cor 15:22ff), you will be saved through
His perfect "obedience".
But has this been tested ? Verified in some scientific manner ? It is an
interesting hypothesis though. Not much data to support it but interesting
nevertheless.
>SJ>It makes sense from a Mediate Creation "point of view" as well. As
PM>True but it requires increased complexity in its explanation which
>makes it a far less viable candidate.
SJ: First, I am pleased that you at least acknowledge that "from a
Mediate Creation `point of view'" "the prostate does make sense".
SJ: Second, that it "requires increased complexity in its explanation" is
irrelevant. What matters is which model best fits *all* the facts.
No it doesn't since the same model without the mediate designer fits as
well and does not require an unprovable, unobservable supernatural force.
>SJ>you yourself pointed out, God could have used an `evolutionary'
>process in developing His creation. I believe He did, but then it is
>not "evolution" in the Darwinian sense, but mediate creation.
PM>You are confused, evolution does not care about how creation
>happened it just explains the observations of evolution using a
>scientific theory.
SJ: I am not "confused" at all. My point is that if "God could have used
an `evolutionary' process" then it is no longer "evolution" but
"creation".
Is it ? Creation is the initial process, evolution what happened since
then. Quite different. After all evolution does not care about how it all
started since it cannot even comment on this from a scientific point of
view.
PM>If as you say you believe that evolutionary 'processes were used
>in the creation' then Darwinian evolution can coexist very well with
>a deity. Of course Darwinian evolution exists as well or better (in
>a scientific sense) with a purely naturalistic explanation.
SJ: If there is a "deity" then "Darwinian evolution" loses all its
metaphysical status as a God-substitute. It becomes just another set
of secondary causes that the "deity" used in developing His creation.
But Darwinism is not necessarily a god-substitute. It merely explains
observations in a scientific fashion and does not deny or admit the
existance of a deity.
SJ: And then there is no need to force recalcitrant *origins* data (eg.
origin of the cosmos, origin of life, origin of life's major groups),
into the procrustean bed of "a purely naturalistic explanation".
Isn't there ? No curiousity on how the creator 'created'? Whatever the
creator might look like in the end ?
>PM>And the reason is? Have you ever looked at the route the urinary
>tract makes in males? Looks like a plumber gone haywire.
>SJ>Have you ever looked at the route a plumbing system makes in a
>complex building that was developed in stages over many years by an
>intelligent designer? Looks like a urinary tract!
PM>But we are not talking about just an intelligent designer but an
>all powerful designer who could have predicted such future
>complications.
SJ: Yes. But there is no reason why "an intelligent designer" who is
also "an all powerful designer" who therefore "predicted such future
complications", nevertheless went ahead with "the route a plumbing
system makes in a complex building that was developed in stages over
many years".
Sounds like a mediocre solution to me and not evidence of a supernatural
creator.
PM>As such this explanation does not make for very good
>science.
SJ: Why not? "science" is about describing what happened, not prescribing
up front what can, or cannot happen.
Science does not make such claims since it cannot prove or disprove it.
Using a supernatural force however makes for poor science exactly for this
reason.
>SJ>Since that would do nothing for the reproduction of the species, I
>doubt it!
PM>So perhaps it was just 'fortuitous' circumstances but perhaps
>there is a selective advantage to anal sexual relationships ?
>Perhaps anal sex should not be dismissed as sinful after all but
>part of a design ?
SJ: Red herring noted! If you want to argue the "selective advantage to
anal sexual relationships" go right ahead.
Sure, for instance to reduce off spring in bad years ? No sexual
frustrations though...
>PM>Why would a designer design a whale with hind legs? Why would a
>designer design Or whale embryos growing teeth which then
>'disappear'? There are plenty of examples.
>SJ>Such a theory of descent is therefore devoid of any significant
>meaning and equally compatible with almost any philosophy of
>nature." (Denton M., "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis", 1985,
>pp154-155)
PM>meaning is something we might search for but there need not be
>meaning to our existance in a theological sense.
SJ: Another red-herring? My point was simply that common ancestry is
"compatible with almost any philosophy of nature", not exclusively
Darwinian evolution. I take your failure to dispute that, and the
attempt to change the subject, as tacit agreement.
Is it ? Any natural philosphy which can explain in a scientific manner
evolution should be considered. A supernatural designer however is not
scientific.
PM>The mystery deepens as it requires more and more assumptions to
>explain away the discrepancies. Occam's razor shreds such arguments
>to bits and pieces.
SJ: Again you are mixing your arguments. Either: 1. you can claim
"Occam's razor" at the outset, and rule out a Designer apriori, or 2.
you can argue that there may be a Designer, and cite examples of
imperfect design that present difficulties for some versions of that
hypothesis. But it to argue 2 and then when your argument fails, to
oscillate back to 1 is a mark of confusion or more likely
dsperation! Please make up your mind which argument you wish to make
and then let's take it one at a time.
Both arguments can be used with equal viability. If you want to argue that
poor design actual is evidence of design since the designer is not obliged
to do a good job then this desperate argument fails Occam as well as
science. How could one disprove your argument since one could always claim
that we do not understand the deity or his/her ways ?
[...]
SJ>It is more correct to say that the "designer is working through"
>*natural processes*. If "the designer is working through evolution",
>then it is no longer "evolution" but mediate creation.
PM>Nonsense, evolution does not give a darn about an intelligent or
>natural 'creator' of life. Darwinian evolution exists equally well
>in either scenario.
SJ: When someone starts a sentence with "Nonsense" I suspect he is
bluffing. It's like the old preacher's sermon notes: "Argument weak
here. Shout!"
Well, call my bluff if you believe it is.
SJ: The point is that if there is "an intelligent or natural 'creator' of
life" then there is no reason to rule Him out in "evolution",
especially in those areas where "Darwinian evolution" has
difficulties explaining the evidence. Mediate Creation then becomes
the General Theory with "Darwinian evolution" merely a Special Theory
within it.
We are talking about evolution per se. If the designer used natural
processes then why is the process suddenly creation rather than evolution
? Especially if one cannot distinguish between a designer/natural process ?
PM>To require a creator when in fact naturalistic explanations
>suffice fails the occam razor as well as scientific foundation.
SJ: The point is that "naturalistic explanations" do not "suffice" to
fully explain:
SJ:
1. The origin of the cosmos
2. The origin of life
3. The origin of life's major groups
4. The origin of human consciousness
Why would evolution have to explain the origin of the cosmos or life ? It
does not say anything about such issues. Origin of life's major groups is
addressed by evolution far better than by a creator 'she just did it'.
Which creator was this ? The christian one ? Btw creation fails to explain
the origin of the deity.
Btw the usage of quotes of pro or anti evolutionists as proof is a faulty
form of logic aka argument from authority. Quotes from Gould and others
merely represent an opinion often in a larger framework. If you quote
Gould you should not limit your quotes for instance to issues you agree
with. That would be misrepresenting Gould's position on the whole issue.
Regards