Intelligent Design — A Fundamental Question

“ID is curiosity. ID is discovery, it’s questions, it’s research.”

So, exactly what ID research has been done and what has been discovered?

Dave

Actually ID has been the basis of bioengineering research all along. Only the Darwinist bioengineers had attributed human-like qualities to natural selection, and were applying this “design bias” belief in their research - and all the meanwhile the polemicists like Eugenie Scott were telling us that Darwinism was the basis of their research!

Funny how history gets revised by those with an agenda.

-Matthew

Can you please cite some research? Can you please identify a discovery?

What exactly do you mean by “random nature of information generation that Darwinism requires.”

I’m not a biologist, but I know of no such “requirement”.

Noting, btw, that “Darwinism” is not a meaningfull term, the only random aspect of evolutionary mechanisms is random occurence of genetic mutations. After that, nothing random occurs until another mutation. Do I have that wrong?

Dave

Mathew -

“Only the Darwinist bioengineers had attributed human-like qualities to natural selection…”

What exactly do you mean?

Dave

No it doesn’t.

I was referring to your stated requirement of “random nature of information generation.” - key word, “information.”

I suspect you’ve fallen into Demski’s “Complex Specified Information” trap. I don’t have the time to explain his errors. Recommend you visit http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/dembski.html

So, about that cited research that supports ID?

Also, if you have a chance, can you please restate the ID hypothesis? I don’t recall ever seeing one.

Dave

Dave- we’ve all seen the TalkOrigins archive. Their refutations are useful for debating a creationist or ID advocate who may not be so well versed in the relevant subjects, but they aren’t really a whole lot better than mere soundbites. Where TalkOrigins is really useful is for their citations- if you look up their sources, you may find a far more comprehensive look at whatever subject you’re debating. It’s much better to debate from a good background knowledge of a subject than from a few pre-packaged talking points.

In case it’s not clear, I’m on your side I just have a better understanding of where these guys are coming from.

Nate:

Hang on, you say there is no such requirement, yet you then say that the mutation is random. Forgive me if I’m wrong, but mutation is a VERY necessary element to Darwinian evolution, correct? So, mutation = necessary. mutation = random. Therefore random = necessary.

I think you’ve misunderstood him. I realize there was a lot of room for confusion in there, but I think I know what he meant to say. Mutation is certainly random with respect to fitness. That is not to say that there is an equal distribution between beneficial and detrimental mutations- there isn’t. Neutral mutations are by far the most common, and the majority of the remainder are detrimental. However, I’m sure we all recognize that evolution requires only a very small number of beneficial mutations, no more than are observed, in fact. I don’t think there’s any dispute here.

And to address your concern over the term “Darwinism”, we call it that to differentiate between evolution (change over time which could be progressive or regressive) and Darwinism (RMNS adding useful information to the genome, generating higher biocomplexity. Also, universal common descent — it’s also referred to the neo-Darwinian synthesis).

Indeed, a number of those supporting ‘Darwinism’ (including many at talk.origins) are quite anal about not using anything ending with ‘-ist’ to refer to themselves, but since people actually working in the field such as Dawkins use ‘Darwinism’ and ‘Darwinist’ liberally and Gould used ‘evolution’ and ‘evolutionist’, I don’t think they have a leg to stand on.

On CSI, though- I’ve read several of Dembski’s online articles, as well as The Design Inference and The Design Revolution, and I’ve been lurking for a little while on the ISCID board, and I think I’m approaching a real understanding of what is meant by CSI, and a better understanding, I think, of the problems in how it’s applied towards biology.

CSI, of course, depends on some sort of environment. CSI can’t stand alone. An object or system isolated from all forms of environment can be complex, but never specific, right? So living things are only specific with respect to their ecological niche. Now the claim is that stochastic processes can’t cause an increase in specificity- of course they can generate increases in complexity. Evolution is stochastic because mutations are random. But any mutation is, for our purposes, only random with respect to an organism’s fitness relative to its environment. But this environment is itself changing- and changing in random ways (that isn’t strictly true; the environment consists of other populations that are themselves changing in response to all the changes occurring in other organisms). So you’re talking about increases in specificity only with respect to an environment which is itself constantly undergoing stochastic metamorphosis.

But that isn’t strictly true, either, because populations aren’t actually increasing in specificity relative to their environments- or rather, they undergo only very tiny increases. The species of today are no better suited- no more specific- to their niches than the species of a billion years ago were to theirs, because those niches are totally different. Many of these species are more complex, yes- but unguided processes have no problem with increases in complexity.

This, I am coming to believe, is key. You have to consider any organism or population solely in the context of its environment. A genome’s CSI increases because every other genome’s CSI increases- meaning no genome increases in CSI.

Matthew- you may now begin destroying my argument.

Oops- I lost my train of thought in the first paragraph of my last post. I was attempting to rectify what I perceived as Nathan misunderstanding one of Dave’s points. I meant to point out that while mutations are random, natural selection is not. Matthew once argued that natural selection is in fact random as well, since you can only consider it relative to an environment which is itself random, but he missed the point. Indeed, you can only consider it relative to a randomly changing environment- and relative to that environment natural selection is not random. You can’t have it both ways. I think that’s basically the point Dave was trying to make.

Huh? :p I need to buy a book and catch up on this whole scientific schmaltz…

Anyone got a suggestion for a book that covers the playing field, the players, and the current score. That is geared towards an idiot?

Huh? :p I need to buy a book and catch up on this whole scientific schmaltz…

Anyone got a suggestion for a book that covers the playing field, the players, and the current score. That is geared towards an idiot?

Despite the fact that I think he’s wrong, Dembski’s The Design Revolution has, in my opinion, by far the best summation of the whole issue. It’s not exactly geared towards idiots, but then, you’re not exactly an idiot

George interpreted my question correctly - what I was getting at is the too common accusation that evolution is random. Selection is anything but.

As for the book recommendations, there appears to be a good list here > http://www.ncseweb.org/store.asp

Now, about that research? Add the stated hypothesis of ID?

Dave

“selection is fundamentally random, because the necessary mechanism for selection, environmental pressures, are themselves random”

No, in this context, I don’t agree.

Again, I’m not a biologist nor a scientist, but “selection” seems to me to be very un-random. The faster gazelle survives and is the default selection (for reproduction) because the slow one was eaten by the cheetah. Once the “fast” trait was acquired through mutation there was no randomness to which one got eaten nor which one survived.

“certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection”

I apologize for not being clear. I meant a scientific hypothesis.

That statement is not a scientific hypothesis, it’s an assertion or an opinion.

The scientific method is very simple, and consists of five basic steps. They are:

1. Observe some aspect of the universe

2. Form a hypothesis that potentially explains what you have observed

3. Make testible predictions from that hypothesis

4. Make observations or experiments that can test those predictions

5. Modify your hypothesis until it is in accord with all observations and predictions

“Intelligent cause” isn’t a specific enough explanation to perform step 3.

As for the “research” I requested cited research - again I apologize for not stating “scientific” research which is what I implied.

It’s a good thing you are not sold on ID as a “scientific conclusion” because, best I can tell, so far it’s not science. But it’s guaranteed that if someone developes a real scientific hypothesis of ID and performs the rest of the scientific method to support it, that person will surely be acclaimed with a Nobel Prize and a place in history.

Dave

Thanks for the link for us ID noobs!

A have an off the wall question…

Is it the oppsition that “Any” supernatural being could have created “man” and the “universe”, or is it just an opposition to “God” creating man and the universe?

For some reason that Star Trek episode where Kirk and his cohorts leave a male and female on a planet alone, to start a new world, then vow to come back years later to check on them to see how they progressed popped in my mind.

Would the creation argument be more “palatable” if it were other beings from somewhere in the universe giving Earth a so-called “jump start”?

Ok, so I got “Stargate” and the whole Pryamid/spaceship/landing dock scene in my mind also as I write this also. hahahahaha..

Guy - “Is it the oppsition that “Any” supernatural being could have created “man” and the “universe”, or is it just an opposition to “God” creating man and the universe?”

Don’t know if you were asking me but as far as my criticism of ID goes, your question isn’t in the picture - except for the “man” part and “universe” part. (Replace “man” with “life” for the remainder of my response and set the universe aside for the moment). I have no idea and am open to theories as to the initial origin of life on this rock. I accept for now that it was chemical in origin from natural processes until a better explanation comes along or that one is refuted. This is a better explanation for me than supernatural causes - in that I know of no supernatural explanations for anything.

My argument with ID is that it isn’t science because it requires the supernatural - the designer. Science has no business and no capabilities in confirming or denying the supernatural, IMHO. It is limited to natural phenomena only. This is why any life origin explanations relying on supernatural causes ought to be off limits from US public school science classes. Present them all you want in non-science settings - so long as other equally viable supernatural causes are also presented.

I remember that Star Trek episode, I think. Given the geologic and fossil record on Earth, it couldn’t have happened that way because humans are such a recent “addition” - unless, off course, the depositer of the life forms has made repeat visits - many repeat visits - over millions of years. There is no evidence of this. There is ample evidence, however, of the evolutionary explanation.

Dave

Nathan - “Selection. would you agree that it is at the very least unspecified and non-directional? It certainly isn’t conscious.”

Well, in my faster gazelle example, it certainly isn’t conscious, per se. The surviving (faster) gazelle was the only choice.

In other cases selection seems to be very “conscious”. The male tropical bird with all those fancy feathers and dances gets selected - apparently - by the female for mating because, well, he was fancier and had a better dance than his competition. Whether she chooses “consciously” is tough to say, given that her brain may not have “consciousness” in the way we’re using the term - but certainly there is some discrimination in her selection. It was directed.

“2nd, faster gazelle’s are not, by default, selected. They are only selected in the random instance that a cheetah is present. No cheetah, no selection.”

I guess that would be true. If there were no cheetahs present, they would not HAVE to be fast. But cheetahs being present is not random. They are part of the environment in which the gazelles live. As a side note, whether it’s a gazelle or not - I don’t recall the exact creature - the cheetah and it’s favorite prey are the two fasted land aninals on the planet. Think about it.

“3rd, of course the death is not random … when you involve a conscious mind (the cheetah) that chooses who gets eaten (the easiest one to catch and kill), but the placement of the cheetah in an area where gazelle’s are present is completely random (ultimately).”

Again, I don’t think the “placement” of the cheetah is random. Day to day encounters may be chance encounters - influenced by actions of both the hunter and hunted, but the cheetah is part of the gazelle’s long term environment and vice versa. Random placement would have the cheetah showing up in the Artic.

Dave

Dave,

“”"Again, I’m not a biologist nor a scientist, but “selection” seems to me to be very un-random. The faster gazelle survives and is the default selection (for reproduction) because the slow one was eaten by the cheetah. Once the “fast” trait was acquired through mutation there was no randomness to which one got eaten nor which one survived.”"”

That is actually a perfect example of random selection. It is reproductive efficiency selection, and the traits that are deemed “efficient” will change with the random input variables (i.e. habitat, climate, predation, etc). This is why the long-term effect is randomization of the genome - because one trait will be eliminated that is later ’selected for’, and it cannot often be regained.

The sad truth for most species is that natural selection can all too easily pare away more traits then they can keep up with. For some reason evolutionary biologists would like to believe otherwise, but then they tell us exactly this when we actually have highly selective pools (i.e. the species can’t survive because of loss of genetic variance, etc, etc).

George,

Your discussion of co-varying specification is incredibly interesting…

I do have to contend that the suggestion that species maintain set specificity over the millenia cannot be true - the founding assumption being that the initial non-living system contained no functional specificity (i.e. before any self-replication even occurred).

Some randomization events in the environment can increase selective preference for a specimen with formerly lower specificity (i.e. on the Galapagos Islands where the *lack* of functional wings was a benefit for numerous species). But here this constitutes a reduction in unnecessary functional specificity because it is reproductively inhibitive (inefficient).

Great conversation…

-Matthew

Nathan,

OK, I understand now. What would you (or George for that matter) say to the argument that selection is fundamentally random, because the necessary mechanism for selection, environmental pressures, are themselves random? I don’t think this is an issue you can gloss over, do you?

I think if you read some of my previous posts you’ll find the answer. I said:

while mutations are random, natural selection is not. Matthew once argued that natural selection is in fact random as well, since you can only consider it relative to an environment which is itself random, but he missed the point. Indeed, you can only consider it relative to a randomly changing environment- and relative to that environment natural selection is not random. You can’t have it both ways.

You can’t compare an individual or population’s fitness to any independent, objective, absolute standard. No such standard exists. ‘Fitness’, and thus selection for fitness, has no meaning outside of the context of an environment. If you want to talk about natural selection being a random or non-random process, you can only talk about it being random or not with respect to fitness relative to an environment. That environment itself is random, but natural selection is decidedly not random with respect to an organism’s fitness relative to that environment. Did that clarify it for you?

Guy-

Is it the opppsition that “Any” supernatural being could have created “man” and the “universe”, or is it just an opposition to “God” creating man and the universe?

No one’s in opposition to the idea that a supernatural being could have created everything- indeed, AFAIK the majority of biologists in this country are Christian (in fields like physics and cosmology Christians are slightly in the minority). What is in debate is whether ID as currently formulated is a scientific proposition, and whether any formulation of supernatural design can ever be a scientific proposition. I say no to the former, but think the latter is at least possible.

Would the creation argument be more “palatable” if it were other beings from somewhere in the universe giving Earth a so-called “jump start”?

Perhaps. Some prominent non-Christian scientists have subscribed to an idea called ‘panspermia’, which is essentially what you’re talking about. Panspermia could be anything from primitive bacteria traveling to Earth on an asteroid and starting life, to all life on Earth being purposely designed by intelligent aliens. I think panspermia as a whole makes even less sense than ID, but such notable figures as Francis Crick (one of the discoverers of DNA) cling very strongly to it.

Dave,

My argument with ID is that it isn’t science because it requires the supernatural - the designer. Science has no business and no capabilities in confirming or denying the supernatural, IMHO. It is limited to natural phenomena only.

I don’t quite agree with this. You are absolutely correct that science cannot deal directly with any form of supernatural. That doesn’t say anything about the veracity of any supernatural explanation; that doesn’t mean any supernatural explanation is wrong, it just means that science cannot deal with it.

However, science could deal indirectly with a supernatural explanation. Any supernatural being who wished to intervene in natural affairs would leave clues in the natural world (well, not necessarily, but if it didn’t we would never know about this intervention anyway). Causes have effects. So if you really wanted to formulate an intelligent design hypothesis, you would have to talk about the steps in the design process. From that we could logically derive what consequences that process would have in the natural world and make predictions about things we should find in the present that could confirm this hypothesis. We wouldn’t be able to test the existence of the designer itself, but we could test this specific hypothesis. The Genesis design story could be considered such a hypothesis; it’s already been tested (and falsified).

So yes, I think it could be possible to have a real theory of ID. I just don’t think the current formulation meets the criteria to be considered science.

Dave - “The faster gazelle survives and is the default selection (for reproduction) because the slow one was eaten by the cheetah. Once the “fast” trait was acquired through mutation there was no randomness to which one got eaten nor which one survived.”

Matt - “That is actually a perfect example of random selection. It is reproductive efficiency selection, and the traits that are deemed “efficient” will change with the random input variables (i.e. habitat, climate, predation, etc). This is why the long-term effect is randomization of the genome - because one trait will be eliminated that is later ’selected for’, and it cannot often be regained.”

Unless I misunderstand you, I think you’re wrong, Matt. That’s a very good example of NOT random selection. It wasn’t random at all! There was only one choice for gazelle reproduction - the live gazelle. How can that be random?

This “random” issue is a point that evolution deniers either can’t understand or don’t want to understand - I surmise because it’s a cornerstone of their denial. Random = pure chance = astronomical improbability = evolution can’t happen. Throw in “non-directed” for good measure.

Natural selection isn’t random. Period. It’s a selection!!

This shows up in criticisms of abiogenesis as well. “Those chemicals couldn’t have possibly just randomly come together to form just the right compounds. Do you know how many combinations that could be????” - or words to that effect.

Life is a chemical process, and like all chemical processes it is governed by the deterministic laws of chemistry and physics. These laws are fixed and do not “randomly” change.

If we have a number of amino acids in solution, for instance, they do not combine “randomly” - they combine according to their chemical properties. They have affinity for each other. Thus, any given mixture of amino acids will always combine in the same ways, in accordance with the laws of chemistry. The idea that there are an astronomical number of possible combinations is simply wrong. The laws of physics narrow the possible chemical combinations to a very much smaller number - the possible number of electron configurations in the outer shell of those atoms. All of the other “possible” combinations are forbidden by the laws of chemistry and physics.

Thus, in their “probability” argument, the creationists conveniently neglect to mention that the combination of the components of those biomolecules is not “random” - they are precisely determined by the iron laws of chemistry and nuclear physics. Put a group of amino acids in proximity and they will combine in the very same basic ways every single time, due to the chemistry of carbon atoms. This will happen anywhere in the universe as well. This makes the “probability” that a collection of amino acids will combine to form a particular protein very near 100% and the probability of life existing elsewhere in this vast universe very, very likely.

The laws of chemistry and physics drastically reduce the number of “possible” chemical combinations - and in many cases leave only one possible chemically stable configuration.

Dave

Matt,

I do have to contend that the suggestion that species maintain set specificity over the millenia cannot be true - the founding assumption being that the initial non-living system contained no functional specificity (i.e. before any self-replication even occurred).

Oh, I suppose I wasn’t quite clear. Everything I said was an extreme generalization. Of course there would have been many small, sometimes even large, increases or decreases in specificity- but in general modern organisms are about (not exactly, perhaps, but about) as well suited to their environments as early organisms were to theirs, and thus about as specific. To see this, just consider the fact that populations can survive relatively unchanged for tens of millions of years- provided their environments do not greatly change either.

I’m not sure I understand all of what you said, though. Are you saying that pre-biotic, pre-selection systems would have had functional specificity? If so, by what rubric would their specificity be measured with regard to?

Some randomization events in the environment can increase selective preference for a specimen with formerly lower specificity (i.e. on the Galapagos Islands where the *lack* of functional wings was a benefit for numerous species). But here this constitutes a reduction in unnecessary functional specificity because it is reproductively inhibitive (inefficient).

As far as my understanding of the definitions of specificity and complexity goes, what you’re talking about is preference for individuals with lower complexity, not specificity. Complexity of course can certainly change in either direction; it is only specificity that I am claiming holds relatively constant- and as far as I am aware, it is only the specificity component that anyone disputes evolution’s ability to generate. Unguided natural processes can certainly produce complexity; mountains are complex, random numbers are complex, etc.

Presumably the loss of functional wings in flightless birds was motivated by a change in their environments. I would contend, then, that these birds are roughly equally specific to their current environment as their flying ancestors were to theirs. It is only the complexity that has changed.

Thus, in their “probability” argument, the creationists conveniently neglect to mention that the combination of the components of those biomolecules is not “random” - they are precisely determined by the iron laws of chemistry and nuclear physics. Put a group of amino acids in proximity and they will combine in the very same basic ways every single time, due to the chemistry of carbon atoms. This will happen anywhere in the universe as well. This makes the “probability” that a collection of amino acids will combine to form a particular protein very near 100% and the probability of life existing elsewhere in this vast universe very, very likely.

The creationists would point out, however, that the chemistry making formation of proteins from amino acids a necessary rather than contingent phenomenon has yet to be demonstrated, so as far as we know it would have had to have happened by pure chance. So as far as the origin of the first cells goes, ID is about equally well substantiated as any of the current abiogenesis hypotheses. What differentiates ID from these hypotheses, however, is that ID is not really a testable hypothesis, whereas we can test all of these abiogenesis hypotheses and use the results of those tests to discard and refine our understanding where appropriate, and hopefully, eventually reach a good understanding of the origin of the first life.

Dave,

Re: randomness of selection.

You are continuing to confuse two different subjects: criteria and mechanism. It is true that the mechanism of the selection can be considered “non-random” - i.e. the mechanism of natural selection is death.

Even the “super-criteria” can be considered relatively non-random: reproductive efficiency.

But the actual criteria for “reproductive efficiency” is entirely random, and fluctuates with each generation. Thus, as I have already pointed out, criteria change randomly in a giant system of reflexive adjustment. I.e. climate change is randomly incurred, a predatory species overpopulates, natural selection suddenly becomes a stronger selective pressure, different characteristics are selected for, etc.

-Matthew

George,

“”"As far as my understanding of the definitions of specificity and complexity goes, what you’re talking about is preference for individuals with lower complexity, not specificity.”"”

Hmm… I just might see your point.

In other words, bird A on the Galapagos has X percentage functional specificity. After the environmental shift, the wings are no longer functionally necessary, so his specificity is constant - still whatever the initial X was.

Very interesting… food for thought.

-Matthew

Matt-

But the actual criteria for “reproductive efficiency” is entirely random, and fluctuates with each generation. Thus, as I have already pointed out, criteria change randomly in a giant system of reflexive adjustment. I.e. climate change is randomly incurred, a predatory species overpopulates, natural selection suddenly becomes a stronger selective pressure, different characteristics are selected for, etc.

Right- but as I’ve been saying, while the criteria are random, natural selection is decidedly not random with respect to those criteria- and those criteria are the only criteria against which you may judge the randomness or non-randomness of selection. Gah, that sentence came out badly, but hopefully it’s still intelligible.

Ok, I found the books I need. So be prepared, one day I am going to say something on this derned subject of yours that will actually mean something!

Essentially, the argument is over terms. Yes, as Dave said, the word “random” is used by the ID folks to sort of “stack the deck” probabilistically against the formulation of organic material, and the increase in biocomplexity. Even if you are correct in your assessment of selection as “non-random”, the very small non-random action is wrapped in, and dependent upon, completely random occurrences.

You’re getting close, but you’re still missing a part of my point. Yes, depending on the definition, the selection is random- but if you use that definition, then specificity becomes random, i.e. meaningless. An organism’s specificity is also “wrapped in, and dependent upon, completely random occurrences.”

This is a difficult concept to get across, so I’m trying to formulate it as coherently as possible. Yes, the environment is random. But natural selection results from this random environment in non-random ways. A result deterministically generated from random criteria is not random when considered against those criteria.

Thus, natural selection is entirely non-random with respect to the environment it acts in. And thus, natural selection is only meaningful with respect to the environment it acts in. So natural selection is decidedly non-random by the only measure that has any relevance. Likewise, specificity is only meaningful with respect to this same random environment. This means that either natural selection and specificity are not random, or that both are random. Neither can be both random and meaningful.

I may be too optimistic, but I think we may actually be closing in on the root of the whole debate.

George, you should now be convinced there is a God, because we’ve just witnessed a miracle — possible common ground and agreement on a point between Matthew and George!

Just shoot me an email and I’ll tell you where to sign up

I may have to take you up on that- walking on water and raising the dead kinda pales in comparison!

Sorry for posting three time in a row, but I think I just hit on a very important realization. Specification is conserved! Organisms can increase in specificity, i.e., how well they are function in their environment- but always at the expense of others in their ecology!

Consider the example of flightless Galapagos birds Matthew used earlier. When the environment initially shifted (or the birds shifted their environment, whichever actually happened) and they adopted a flightless role, the presence of flight-capable wings would have reduced the birds’ efficiency and thus their fitness, resulting in an equal (total) increase in fitness (i.e., specificity) for the organisms that preyed on them. When they lost flight capability, their efficiency/fitness/specificity increased, with compensating loss of fitness/specificity for the predators.

A disadvantage in a prey species results in an advantage for their predators, and vice versa. Given a closed ecology, specificity is conserved!

Any flaws in my logic?

George,

This is honestly some of the most interesting information-theory related stuff I’ve seen discussed in a long while…

You may be on to something that might amount to a fundamental difficulty in the definition of CSI. I am very close to being convinced that CSI is an incomplete theory - though its implications still seem entirely correct.

The problem can be framed by an example: Car “A” has a working engine. Car “B” is just a wrecked chasis. If we placed them in environment “1″ (a dry road), we could easily see that car “A” has more functional specificity than car “B”. If we place them in environment “2″ (say we hang them by their bumpers from a crane), neither one has any more functional specificity than the other.

The problem lies in the fact that (at least with my understanding of CSI the way we here have it defined) CSI does not allow us to distinguish between cars A & B in environment 2.

This does not, however, solve the problem of where car A got its functional engine. It merely means that we have a major problem in defining functional specificity with respect to an individual environment.

It still highlights the main problem with natural selection as a source of functional specificity - because natural selection would very likely send car B back into the first environment, where it would immediately “go extinct.”

The problem we have for the time being is a better definition of functional specificity.

Cheers,
Matthew

The problem lies in the fact that (at least with my understanding of CSI the way we here have it defined) CSI does not allow us to distinguish between cars A & B in environment 2.

This does not, however, solve the problem of where car A got its functional engine. It merely means that we have a major problem in defining functional specificity with respect to an individual environment.

Right, but as I understand it, car A’s engine is only functional/specific when considered with respect to environment 1; there isn’t an absolute reference frame by which car A would be considered specific. Well, that is only provided that the cars were not designed in the first place- even in environment 2, car A is still specific with respect to its blueprints, or the idea of the car in its designer’s mind. Likewise, an organism’s specificity can be considered with respect to its environment, or else with respect to your designer’s original design. So car A’s engine really *isn’t* functional in environment 2, no matter how well it worked in environment 1, unless we consider the mind of it’s designer as an environment 0. But in the case of life, of course, that would be begging the question.

But I think that most on both sides really are missing the one real problem with CSI- as you said, the definition of functional specificity. Design advocates don’t seem to be making any distinction between specificity from a strict standpoint of how functional a phenotype is in its environment, and specificity from a post-hoc consideration of perceived quality of engineering.

For instance, a commenter at Uncommon Descent claimed that the loss of pigmentation in polar bears was a loss of information, but based on the definitions we’re working with, that is only a loss of complexity, and actually a small, localized *gain* in functionality. It’s really only a loss in functionality by subjective human thinking, by imposing a specification after the fact, unless of course we assume the polar bear’s design, in which case the specification would not be after the fact, but have been given by the designer long before the fact. Even then the relevance is questionable, because we don’t really know that your designer would find the same qualities admirable in engineering as we do. No, the only reliable criterion is pure, relative functionality.

It still highlights the main problem with natural selection as a source of functional specificity - because natural selection would very likely send car B back into the first environment, where it would immediately “go extinct.”

Well first off, there are certainly a great deal of environmental shifts that would almost never reverse themselves. Consider the example of flightless birds. Some of the species of flightless birds we find around the world would probably have lost the wings as a result of their environment changing around them- but the same thing would have occurred in others when they instead migrated to a new environment. In such cases, it would be far less likely that the environment would shift to a state where the inability to fly would again be disadvantageous.

However, I’m not at all certain that ‘deselection’ is really so common. It sounds like, as far as the generation of CSI, this is the only real point of contention between us. Can you walk me through the rationale? I read the post at Uncommon Descent about it, but I found a number of problems:

Orthodox evolutionists tell us that mutations are random when plotted against fitness but this is not the case. Mutations are random when plotted against position in the genome.

I don’t see how these contradict each other. Mutations are random with respect to position in the genome, but they are also random with respect to fitness. Dave Scot seems to be under the impression that random with respect to fitness means there is an equal distribution between beneficial and detrimental mutations. No evolutionists claim this. Mutations *are* random with respect to fitness- but that in no way contradicts the fact that vastly more detrimental mutations occur. I believe you, at least, are not denying that beneficial mutations occur- the question is rather whether these represent increases in information.

This article doesn’t really explain, or back up, the point I think you are making, so I’d appreciate it if you could clarify exactly what you mean, and your justifications.

George,

You make a good point. I have been using a definition of specificity that solely considers functionality as the main criteria… I was speaking with one of the professors (a biotechnologist) here at the university and he pointed out this error - specificity as an indicator of design does not have to demonstrate ANY functionality (that is a *selection* criteria though).

“”"It’s really only a loss in functionality by subjective human thinking, by imposing a specification after the fact,”"”

George I’m afraid you are taking the Dawkins route a little too closely here - arguing semantics and avoiding the issue. Regardless of whether there is an environmental strain on that particular metabolic pathway (i.e. pigment production for polar bears), there is obviously still a problem explaining how the metabolic pathway originated in the first place. While environmental selection pressures are interesting to discuss - and they should be discussed (as they are fundamental to our understanding of genetic drift) - writing a theory of information solely on selective pressures isn’t working.

“”"However, I’m not at all certain that ‘deselection’ is really so common. It sounds like, as far as the generation of CSI, this is the only real point of contention between us.”"”

Deselection for a trait isn’t even necessary, again because of the problem of error catastrophe. The large majority of mutations that disrupt metabolic pathways in an organism fall below a threshold for selection - and there is no way to cap this source of randomization without simply putting the species to sleep.

“”"Mutations *are* random with respect to fitness- but that in no way contradicts the fact that vastly more detrimental mutations occur.”"”

I think I would agree with you on this statement - although I’m not sure we would agree on definitions and all. I think what is tripping up Scot is that he is expecting a normal Gaussian distribution with a neutral median/mean, and it is actually a weighted (negatively) mean (i.e. the net distribution on a supposed absolute fitness curve is negative).

“”"I believe you, at least, are not denying that beneficial mutations occur- the question is rather whether these represent increases in information.”"”

Well, even small, demonstrated increases in “information” still don’t change the scene. The point is determining whether we are working with a system that has enough randomization dampening AND enough information input to increase the net total.

Cheers,
Matthew

You make a good point. I have been using a definition of specificity that solely considers functionality as the main criteria… I was speaking with one of the professors (a biotechnologist) here at the university and he pointed out this error - specificity as an indicator of design does not have to demonstrate ANY functionality (that is a *selection* criteria though).

True, functionality is not necessary- functionality is only one example of the sorts of independently given specification patterns we would look for when determining design of an artifact. However, in the case of biology, I fail to see what other pattern we would use to determine specification. I see two other possibilities, and neither is practical. We have on the one hand the pattern initially given by the designer, its ‘blueprints’, if you will, but we can’t very well argue that X biological system is specific because it matches that blueprint when we are attempting to determine whether said system is the product of design at all! Fortunately I have not seen anyone claim that life is specific because it conforms to its designer’s specification; that would be absurd circular reasoning. The other possibility, which I’m afraid is used all too often by those in the ID community, is how well a system conforms to what a human engineer might expect the system to be, given its function. But remember, we cannot use patterns given after the fact to argue that something is specified. I might as well take a sequence spat out of a random number generator and claim that the same sequence had come to me in a dream, and thus I must have subconsciously influenced the computer. If an engineer says, “This system exhibits specificity because it performs its function very efficiently,” that is fine, but if alternatively he says, “This system exhibits specificity because I find its design to be very elegant”, that is simply fallacious. Irreducibly complex systems are very elegant, but they are only specific insofar as that irreducibility aids efficiency and thus functionality. It all comes back to functionality- as far as I can see, that is the only reliable criterion we can use, in the case of biology, for determining whether something is specified or not. So no, specificity as an indicator of design does not have to demonstrate functionality. Art is specific even though usually lacking in function. However, art is only specific because it conforms to the artist’s initial design; if someone came upon a random jumble of rocks and claimed it was art, we wouldn’t take him very seriously. We can’t use that type of specification for biology because it amounts to begging the question. So I argue that functionality is the sole indicator of specificity we may use in studying biology. What other criterion would you use?

George I’m afraid you are taking the Dawkins route a little too closely here - arguing semantics and avoiding the issue.

Of course I’m arguing semantics- we can’t very well attack the issue if our definitions are unclear, can we? The practical matter of how evolution actually generates novelty is another issue- at the moment I am attempting to clear the theoretical barrier CSI is supposed to place barring such generation. It isn’t very meaningful to talk about concrete physical pathways if it is mathematically impossible for those pathways to ever be tread.

writing a theory of information solely on selective pressures isn’t working.

That isn’t at all what I’m trying to do, I am merely trying to establish that the standard definition of CSI does not fully take those selective pressures into account.

Well, even small, demonstrated increases in “information” still don’t change the scene. The point is determining whether we are working with a system that has enough randomization dampening AND enough information input to increase the net total.

Would you then be willing to come to the position, then, that the generation of functional novelty in living systems through unguided evolution is not in fact contradicted by mathematical theory, but only by biological reality?

Interesting…

Um, can I ask a question? Can you name one instance of intelligent design theorists discovering a mechanism of the natural world that is actually irreducible by naturalistic explanation? Go back as far as Paley if you like. None? (that’s the right answer).

Well, then why are you treating their suppositions so seriously? THEY SUCK AT SCIENCE, WHICH IS WHY THEY HAD TO CREATE THEIR OWN NETWORK TO GET VALIDATION OF THEIR VIEWS, BECAUSE TO ATTEMPT TO PUBLISH THEIR CRAP IN PEER-REVIEWED JOURNALS WOULD INVITE RIDICULE AS THEIR WORK GETS DESTROYED BY REASON AND FACTS.

When the Bible is simply wrong about something as important as the creation of the world, what choices do you have? You can cease to take any of the remainder of the book seriously without independent confirmation of the veracity of its material- or else you can attempt to demonstrate that its the evolutionists who got it wrong.

Obviously you don’t put much stock in science, and I’d assume that your knowledge of it reflects that. Unless you care to prove me wrong, why don’t you stick to what you claim to be a veteran at?

Nathan asked me to create a posting that describes the tenets of my theory. I don’t know how to do so without creating a very exhaustive post. At the risk of being labeled a verbose loon, I’m gonna do what the man asked. Bear in mind, this is an exhaustive outline, not an exhaustive thesis of my work on this subject.

As requested, I will outline the tenets of Presuppositional Creationism, which is an original theory with me, published in 1999, based on even earlier book of mine titled New Paradigms in Creationism. All others claiming to have taught this presuppositional methodology prior to the year 1999 in the context of the creationist debate is, in my estimation, a bold faced liar. I will refrain from proving that to you here as I know you don’t care. Why is it important for me to believe that, to feed my ego? Yeah, but more interesting to you would be the realization that yet again, creationists are making claims about themselves that simply are not true, and that even if I let them get away with stealing the title and concept, they will misapply the theory to support monstrous theologies like supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism, and they will create yet more false creationist models and keep the topic confused for further generations of Christians to come.

I will address questions, if any. In a separate posting within a week or two, I will outline another theory of mine called The Hypothetical Question. The two are theologically related and in my opinion are absolutely necessary for a Christian to understand the Doctrine of Creation properly, and the Word of God properly interpreted, and understand the Gospel message, in context. They are also necessary to understand the answers to the problems inherent in the internal and external debate of science and faith, and competing creationist models. PC is an ugly theory, and solves a problem that only one group should appreciate fully but doesn’t, the Hypothetical Question is a beautiful theory that solves a problem that affects everybody but only one other person in the world knows even exists, to my knowledge.

I would very much enjoy feedback, and question where we could get into specifics, or commentary that would inform me that I and my ideas are obtuse and about as helpful as the theories of flat-earthism or geocentrism were after Galileo.

In case anyone after considering my views thinks this, I would just remind them that my purpose for developing the ideas is not to challenge naturalists in a debate that cannot be won by theism at this point in history, nor necessarily to challenge other creationist models within Christianity, other than YEC, that accommodate naturalistic explanations into their views in order to conform biblical ideas about creation to modern scientific ones. The premise that a properly interpreted Biblical theology needs the approval, agreement, or support of a group of people claiming to represent humanity’s official philosophical/cosmological position which by definition rejects supernaturalism as necessary or desired, is absurd. Religious presuppositionalism, which incorporates every religious proposition imaginable, is by definition incompatible with the theory or disciplinary science of naturalism. It is philosophically incompatible by virtue of its fundamental premises which differ inversely to that of naturalism’s premises. One presupposes a philosophical theism that elevates the supernatural over the natural as a primary epistemological principle. The other elevates the natural process as an epistemological first principle, ruling out any supernatural explanation from consideration.

Science and faith are not compatible, they cannot be reconciled except under terms which by definition rule out a fundamental traditional interpretive approach to Judeo-Christian history and theology. In other words, the only way to win with humanistic naturalistic philosophy, or Christian accommodationists, one must compromise their fundamental beliefs and accept the terms of the debate as dictated by atheists and naturalistic models. The whole premise of a science-faith debate, at least in terms of a belief that faith could win such a debate, is patently absurd and negates common sense. If the meaning of a science-faith debate is simply to inform the reader of the differences between the two worldviews, and attempt to provide supporting arguments for each on their own terms, that is the only rational approach to the topic. The former view of the debate leads to theists using disingenuous or demonstrably fallacious arguments to defend theism, a self-contradictory apologetic approach. The latter is an approach that while failing to answer the charges leveled against it by skeptics, provides an internally self-consistent rational apologetic, which supports a Biblical Gospel proposition. The apologetic is not the Gospel, the apologetic is meant to support the Gospel message to an adequate degree, not to an exhaustive degree. To be even clearer, the theistic proposition which includes apologetic arguments and expository theology, respects human free will and does not seek to overwhelm it. The non-theist proposition includes both apologetic arguments (natural scientific descriptions) and expository philosophy (social Darwinism) which does seek to overwhelm the human free-will with rational force and force of law. One is a negative propositional worldview, the other is a positive propositional worldview, negative meaning passively presented and accepted (or rejected) without use of force, positive meaning aggressively or despotically presented using all possible force necessary to secure the acceptance of the masses.

The original propositions of PC were stated as the following (I am going to delete the lengthy explanations of each for brevity’s sake, I can produce them if asked):

1) PC suggests that the YEC movement cannot legitimately call Scientifically Creationism a scientific hypothesis or theory.

2) Scientific Creationism relies on arguments that have been repeatedly shown to be both internally inconsistent and scientifically disproven.

3) there is genuine evidence for the Big Bang and evolution in the universe.

4) Biblical revelation is superior to that of general revelation.

One important point to make here is that general revelation may declare the handiwork of God (natural theology) on one level, but on another level that same creation declares a gospel of chaos and death, not salvation and restoration. Exploding stars or linear accelerator supercolliders cannot tell you by smashing atoms and creating heavy elements out of thin air, that Jesus Christ is Lord, and you are in need of redemption in order to achieve your personal destiny, your reason for existence. Or tell you that you need to be baptized and wash away sins, or that God is a Trinity (as overstated as the concept is). Only the Bible and the preaching of the Gospel can tell you these things. As a matter of fact, if you get too close to nature, it will fool you into worshipping it (Romans 1:21-22).
The concept of godly science is biblical. Adam named the animals in the Garden, with God’s help. They worked in tandem to accomplish the goal. God brought the animals, and Adam classified them. Godless science is merely the sinful application of general fallen physics. Think of a practical scientific application. Microwave ovens. Rockets to the moon. Guns and gunpowder. Bullets and thermonuclear devices. Medicines and illicit drugs, are these replacing human reliance on the provision of the Holy Spirit? Cars and the pollutants they spew. Electricity and the pollutants created by it’s production. Are these sanctified uses of the elements of the universe? We can’t seem to solve world hunger or peace with our science, yet we can land a remote controlled car on Mars.

5) there is an epistemological and eschatological link between the theory of evolution and the coming great deception of evil through the False Prophet of biblical prophecy.

Satan has been working on this theory for thousands of years, it first appeared in concept during the time of the Greeks. The theory is just one part of a grand plan of disinformation (remember, our Edenic parents were deceived by satanic disinformation about the nature of God’s Word, “surely you will not die.. and of God’s universe…and you will be like God, knowing good and evil“) and psychological conditioning that has been working in human society globally for all the modern age. Why would Satan want to pull off such a grand deception, assuming he could do so?

a) it’s exactly opposite of what God’s Word teaches
b) it destroys the image of God in man, by remaking humans into the image of four-footed beasts of the earth
c) it reduces human passions to the level of the animal, where copulation and predation happen without thought and without moral responsibility
d) evolutionary theory proposes a future of humanity (a replacement eschatology) that is totally different form what is taught in the Bible. The biblical eschatology shows man living with God forever in Paradise, fulfilling the purpose of their own creation, while the false eschatology shows the future of man exterminated from the universe forever, obliterated by the very creation that spawned them, and implies that their short lives were completely meaningless and devoid of value.

What better false gospel than this? And if he can get this false creation doctrine taught in every society on the face of the planet, supported by the elite of the sciences, education, and government, and verified by physical evidences, who could resist such a philosophy? What other religious idea could match such a concept? None. I can’t think of anything more powerful to destroy the faith of man. The False Prophet in Scripture calls fire down from heaven, makes a statue speak, in order to deceive those that “dwell upon the earth” and these deceptions are empirical ones, using the elements themselves to secure the fealty of humanity.

Who is going to deny fire from heaven? Anyone who would would be crazy, or getting their information from somewhere else, namely the Bible. Modern science has slowly, piece by piece, concept by concept, presented the physical evidence to the world of the theory of evolution to the point where there is hardly a person on the earth unaffected by it’s influence. Three major religions either teach evolution as a primary source of creation, and most Christian denominations believe in theistic evolution. Only a small number of traditionalists still hold to a literal reading of Genesis and a denial of death before the Fall. Resistance to such ideas was broken down systematically and empiricism rules human society. Christians who have prepared themselves to reject the satanic cosmogony will become the faithful remnant, God’s witnesses, both to Israel and the world against Satan’s plans for humanity’s destruction. One only develops this resistance and faithfulness to stand in the face of evil through years of maturation, developing the ability to deny empirical evidences based only on faith. Presupposition faith that states the Bible is true, though everyman be a liar. The theory of evolution provides a dual purpose. The preparation of the unbelieving human population for deception, and the preparation of the faithful for resistance to deception. One theory, two results. What Satan proposes for evil, God uses for good. Evolutionary theory is the Christian intellectual boot camp to recognize and deal with satanic deception, before the time.

6. The solution to the problem of evidence for the Creationist will be solved in the Millennium, but not until then. The limits of our apologetics is a eschatological issue as well as a soteriological issue (sin and free-will issues).

In addition to these original proposals, the following additionally describes tenets of my theory:

1) it is logically and Biblically improper to use naturalistic arguments as primary apologetic support of a traditional Christian doctrine of theism, or to use naturalistic arguments as a methodology of defeating naturalism as a philosophy or as a science. Creationism is by definition theology and philosophy, not science. PC is the only Christian creationist position that claims to be solely philosophical and denies apologetic uses of natural explanations to validate itself.

2) a Biblical creationist interpretation is specifically six-dayism in its theology without compromise, and only young-earth by implication. A young-earth does not need to be addressed by theology (or otherwise), but a creation in six-days does. This differs from all other creationist models within Christianity, as all of them require that the issue of the age of the creation be solved in order to promote their internal theologies. Young-earth creationism requires proof of a young universe for validity. Old-earth creationism requires the proof that the biblical text can accommodate long ages for validity of their view. Theistic evolution requires the same proof of long ages to promote its view. Thus, PC is the only creationist position that is true to the traditional Judeo-Christian doctrine of creation, which has always been six-dayism primarily and young-earth only by implication. PC is also the only creationist position that presents itself honestly against the naturalist position (not mishandling the evidence), agreeing that the physical evidence is in favor of the naturalistic model, while at the same time theologically proposing a Biblically theistic alternative. The other views both compromise the traditional doctrine of creation and mishandle the scientific evidence.

3) there are two debates within the larger origins debate. The first debate is an external debate between naturalism and theism. The second debate is an internal debate between Christian creationist models vying for primacy within Christianity. All creationist models with the exception of PC use naturalistic explanations to validate their theology or to contradict the naturalism of the atheist. PC is the only creationist model which does not attempt to force theism upon the naturalist, and which does not attempt to conform theism to naturalistic explanations, and which transcends fundamentally flawed sectarian theology and logical inconsistencies of the other models. PC corrects these flaws in order to present a view that is unique enough to challenge the entire methodology of modern Christian creationism. It is a paradigm shift model as opposed to just another addition to the old theme of Augustinian apologetics which has slowly been losing ground to naturalism since the 18th century. All other models follow Augustinian philosophical traditions, while PC follows Scotistic philosophical traditions. Scotistic (for Duns Scotus, a 13th cent. Catholic theologian) philosophy and theology was popular between the 16th and 19th centuries. Between the 4th and 19th century, there were only two major schools of thought in Christianity, Augustinian and Scotist, and at the time of Scotus’ influence there were more adherents to the school of Scotus than to any other within Europe’s universities. The Augustinian approach finally won out by fiat of the Church pezzonovante, and the school of Scotus was outlawed by papal law. Thus, after the 19th century, as the various models of the newly developing creationist movement formed themselves in the wake of the publishing of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life in 1859, they did so under the influence of only one epistemological methodology, that of the Augustinian influence. Reformational (Protestant) theology doesn’t help the problem, because Augustine was the father of Calvinism, it is said, because Calvin basically adopted much of Augustine’s views in total. In other words, Christianity’s doctrine of creation has developed in the modern age as variants of the same man’s single view of apologetics, that of strong evidentialism. Without an epistemological influence that does not rely on strong evidentialism as it’s primary methodology, the Christian cannot advance the debate any further, only add to the already established methodology. If the original methodology was flawed, then we can never breakout of that error and move towards solving the issue, externally or internally.

By proposing a model which uses Scotistic philosophical ideas, and rejects the extremism of Augustinian apologetics, I am attempting to move a stalemated debate forward.

4) There are three basic popular models of creationism in Christianity:

Theistic Evolution
Progressive Creationism (also known as Old-Earth Creationism)
Young-Earth Creationism

There are sub-category models:

Intelligent Design (formerly known as Natural Theology)
Gap Theory (popular in the 19th cent through the early 20th cent.)
Framework Hypothesis (also known as the Two-Register Theory)

A university professor in Ohio taught a class reviewing creationist models, and placed my theory of Presuppositional Creationism as one of four alternative models.

http://people.cedarville.edu/Employee/gollmers/hon3230/old/mynotes/timeprob/index.htm

While Intelligent Design is listed here as a Christian creationist model, it is not so self-described. If you read their own description of their theory (Mere Creation by William Dembski, p.20), they state emphatically that they are a wholly naturalistic scientific position and not a religious one. They have no opinion as to whom the Creator might be, Christian or otherwise. Since most of their descriptions are hardly differentiated from that of theistic evolution, in fact Deism at its worst, I tend to agree with them that it is essentially a non-Christian model. Of course, we know they are lying about themselves, they are closet evangelicals while they are at church, and who don’t have the balls to admit they are theistic evolutionists, professionally speaking, so they act like this to endear themselves to both camps.

5) PC proposes that the physical record of the cosmos and of life on earth shows indisputable evidence of long ages, violent cosmological and biological evolution, and not a shred of evidence to support a theistic view of the origins of the universe. By conceding this fact, PC declares that the young-earth creationist model is wholly defunct, leaving approximately 30 million traditionalist Christians without a cosmological model to defend their view of Genesis. PC also proposes that many of those millions will, once discovering their view of origins is defunct, will move progressively up the scale of Christian models until they are driven by failure into the arms of a wholly unapologetic theistic evolution. Thus, the traditional Christian view of Genesis, that of six-dayism, will be lost forever. PC proposes to be a stop gap theory meant to provide these people with a plausible defense of their belief system in lieu of further developing knowledge within the Church in defense of traditionalism. PC also proposes that presuppositionalism is the inevitable theological position for fundamentalist creationists, and that evidentialism is one of those fundamentally flawed Christian doctrines that I talk so much about.

6) PC proposes that the Fall of Man is the cause of the physical record as we see it today, and that Fall extended not just to the moral realm, but to mankind spiritually, physically, and to affect the cosmos physically as well. The cosmos has been indescribably warped and deformed from its original form, in a process which the Bible calls “the curse of sin and the ground,“ “death and this body of death,“ “thorns and thistles“ and “corruption,” and this barrier of corruption makes it impossible to see the original “very good” creation of God, so that there is a marked disparity between Bible’s statements about the origin of the world and natural theology and the actual record of the cosmos. None of the other models of creationism treat this biblical teaching of the Fall seriously, or just pay lip service to belief in it. Some teach death before the Fall, self-refuting their own teachings on the unique nature of the blood atonement of Christ who offered Himself as a sacrifice for sin, redeeming mankind from the curse of death, brought on by the Fall. In doing so, they assign attributes of the Fall to God’s design in nature, such as defensive mechanisms in animals and violent cosmological processes in nature. Thus, because they are bad theologians, they propose self-contradictory ideas that are easily seen through by intelligent unbelievers, inducing ridicule and refutation even of their own understanding of their own faith propositions, let alone their mishandling of scientific issues.

7) PC proposes that all other Christian positions are accommodationism to methodological materialism, rather than challenging it as they suppose. Accommodationism usually leads to appeasement, and appeasement usually leads to defection or destruction.
PC proposes that special revelation is wholly superior to general revelation. Our understanding and investigation of the natural record must be informed by our understanding of the supernatural revelation of God’s Word to us through His Spirit.
This makes Christian theism a wholly religious idea, a theological and philosophical construct incapable of apprehending a mere naturalistic approach to origins and life’s processes. Thus, Christian philosophy in the current age of naturalism will remain a second-class cosmological model, dwarfed by the Leviathan of neo-Darwinism which because of it pragmatic command of the stuff of the cosmos, induces the respect and idolizing of the hedonist nature worshipping populations they provide things to, like television technology, drugs, food, computers, machines, jobs, and the like. Christianity only provides a distant promise of salvation from a distantly innocuous hell, and that doesn’t compare, especially when they ask in return my abstinence from lots of fun stuff like sex and gambling, drinking, accumulation of wealth and power, reveling (partying), and such things as that. When science provides all that Christianity claims as either God‘s domain or our inheritance (vocational tools, enhancement of human talents and giftings, investigatory methods and tools, etc., wealth, power, etc.) and doesn’t make judgments about its use, the alternative Victorian philosophy will lose.

9) PC proposes that materialist descriptions of reality are instrumentalist in nature and do not represent reality. Their observations are pragmatic and utilitarian, but observations, especially increasingly theoretical ones, do not describe the world as it really is. Scientific theories are useful observations connecting one set of observable situations with others. This view is called rational non-realism, and was the philosophical position espoused by Thomas Kuhn, the famous modern philosopher of science.

10) PC proposes that a fundamental principal of God’s creation is that of the free-will of man. To protect human free-will, God does not permit man to have physical evidence of His existence, which would overwhelm man’s intellect and leave him no choice but to believe. Faith would be refuted, making the command of God to man to approach Him in faith an impossible one to obey. Empirical knowledge of the creation is possible, but only in the context of a post-Fall world which differs in nature and degree from the pre-Fall creation of God. Three things keep mankind from apprehending truth:

as a result of the Fall, humanity is subject to deception on three levels of reality:

1) the physical creation - the stuff of nature is fallen (“cursed is the ground for they sake…”) so that we are experimenting with corrupted materials to begin with often leading us to wrong conclusions about ultimate reality. Beyond the testimony of the general revelation as to God’s nature and character, the material order can at the same time lead men in the other direction. As we look deeper into the stuff of nature there is revealed a fallen order of chaos, destruction, predation, decay and death. The creation is warped and deformed, resisting man’s dominion. It will not willingly give up it’s secrets, nor willingly cooperate in it’s being tamed, nor will it produce for man’s benefit without man shedding his blood and sweating his brow to bring it under his control. Man loses this dominion battle, however, individually speaking, as death finally consumes us all, claiming victory over us.

2) the human intellect is fallen, leaving us dealing with a natural noetic deception concerning the corrupted material stuff - we can’t even think about the stuff correctly because our minds are darkened by sin and rebellious to the truth of God. Paul discusses this carnal thinking process man is trapped in Romans 1, where the end result of the process is to elevate the creation above the creator and worships the attributes of the four-footed beasts of the earth, an accurate description of athiest philosophy, which is hedonistic.

3) there is inherent in the fall and as a consequence of human rebellion, the principle of God allowing Satan a limited ability to use the physical cosmos to deceive man - Scriptural examples are the Serpent (a snake was used to deceive Eve, Gen.3), the Egyptian magicians who copied the first three miracles of Moses in order to deceive the Israelites (Ex.7-8), and the example of the False Prophet in the latter days who calls fire down from heaven and performs miracles in order to deceive mankind (2 Thess.2; Rev.13). That’s a triple whammy and enough for a knockout without the help of special revelation, through the power of the Holy Spirit. We have no time to explore this, but it is a Biblical concept that we can’t always trust what we see in nature, we must always seek God for the interpretation of His own truth, general or special.

Each of these levels of deception has a flipside in the Gospel:

A) the physical stuff of the cosmos will one day be redeemed and renewed. The doctrines of the Millennium and the Messianic Age in Jewish/Christian tradition teaches that the “fallen stuff” will be partially rolled back even in history (Is.65 for example, meaning that the “wolf and lamb” will feed together, a rolling back of the curse of predation, and also it says that human longevity will be increased, a man dying at one hundred will be considered accursed, death is still there but rolled back if you will), and fully renewed in post-history (the recreation).

B) our minds can be renewed by the power of the Holy Spirit (Rom.12:1-2). Through sanctification we can know the wiles of the Devil and see the problems inherent in the fallen creation (we just can’t fix them until Jesus returns and starts the process outlined in “A”)

C) we can put Satan under our feet, so that through the power of the Gospel message we can save men and women from the deceptive destruction he has planned for them. An example of sanctified science that thinks God’s thoughts after him would be an example of extending a proper limitation of the dominion mandate, though until the Second Coming we cannot hope to extend that dominion past God’s eschatological timetable, whatever that may look like.

11) although PC proposes a discontinuity between nature and God’s revelation of Himself in the Bible, there is continuity with both worlds, the pre-Fall creation and the post-Fall creation in God’s reversing that curse of sin through the Gospel message of salvation in Christ. That reversal begins in Genesis and ends in Revelation. Thus, a story of salvation history is told in the bible, when properly interpreted, and that story is liberty from captivity of the curse of sin, and the return of Christ will be our hope of release from the captivity of the curse of the ground. I contend in my theory that the Fall created a dualism on two levels of the physical order.

The first level is the testimony of nature as to the original state of creation. There is now a physical barrier called “corruption” that is impossible to see through (much like the barrier called “Planck time” that theoretical physicists talk about, 10-43 seconds after the Big Bang). The original state doesn’t exist anymore, it has “evolved” (pardon the pun, but it just means “change”) because of the Fall. And occasionally there are divine interventions in the space-time continuum that God also does not leave evidence for, i.e. miracles (what I mean is that usually a natural explanation can somehow be contrived by science to account for the phenomena). If this is God-of-the-gaps, then so be it! Jewish-Christian theology is by definition God-of-the-gaps! This is why when Design Theorists and Progressive Creationists attempt to show what a marvelous thing a supernova is and how God is glorified by such power, complexity and majesty, I just laugh! God didn’t design it that way, it became violent and entropic after the Fall. Before the Fall the physics of the universe must have operated in such a manner as to not contradict the theological definition of “very good” whatever that may ultimately mean.

The second level is that of present physical laws and processes. That which can be known, harnessed and utilized for the purpose of humanity’s survival and propagation as a species, and for the furtherance of salvation history and God’s ultimate plan for mankind. This essentially means that just because Adam fell and the cosmos got messed up doesn’t mean God allows the whole place to descend into chaos. He promised a Redeemer to come that would fix it. That means that He allows time for man to repent. He upholds the world by His very command, even now. The Flood was God’s response to the Fall creating such chaos and death in the world that the line of the Messiah was threatened with extinction, negating the promise to redeem man from the curse of sin, and that could not be allowed. That brings us into the problem of defining what is “messed up” by the Fall, and what is not. Is this possible to do?

This proposition that there is dualism in nature itself related to the Fall flows from Christian theology and yet is often hypocritically rejected by Christianity. Dualism, or Gnostic philosophy, was declared heretical in the early Church. But God’s universe is a both/and universe, often completely contradictory ideas exist side by side in eschatological tension. God promised death and judgment for rebellion, but postpones his judgment because of His mercy, allowing men time to repent. Temporal judgment affects us all though, and thorns and thistles bar our dominion of the creation, though we were commanded to take that dominion of the earth, and because of that curse of sin and the dualistic reality, we eventually succumb to the stranglehold of death and the grave. Men may through the sweat of their brow be able to harness a degree of dominion (microwave ovens, rockets to the moon). But is our utilitarian handling of the stuff in the universe a righteous handling of it? Just because we can make a thermonuclear device, is this an example of truth, or is it not a warping of the truth of God in nature? I contend the latter, we are warping the Fallen stuff to our own destruction. What I’m saying here is that science often pats itself on the back and believes that their view of the world is right because their science often works, it produces stuff we can use and improve our lives with. But this utilitarian use of the stuff of matter is allowed by God because He is gracious and slow to judge, He allows us time, and even allows us to do evil in the midst of our ignorance. Thus I contend that scientific success is often something to overcome by the power of the Gospel and the Spirit of discernment, rather than always a “blessing” to be explained through proof-texting the Bible, as we often see in other creation models. What the world may have looked like without sin never crosses our mind, it is hypothetical. What scientific developments would have developed in a world where Adam obeyed? That is an interesting thought, isn’t it?

Conclusion

Presuppositional Creationism recognizes that one of the major points of the Gospel is that man is commanded by God to approach Him in faith. Attempts at reconciling empirical scientific theories with Christian propositions will not always be possible in all venues, in fact most, because of the problem of the Fall. We should propose that a religious answer to the origins issue, the traditional six-day view, is rational, but falls into a category of philosophy and theology, not empiricism. If the world chooses to only accept empirical methodologies, then we have differentiated ourselves from that humanistic/material view and obeyed scripture on the point of separation from the world.

If Christian cosmogony is ultimately correct, the preaching of the Gospel will illumine this fact to men’s hearts and mind in present order, and when Christ Himself returns this fact will be revealed empirically to the world at large. This brief survey of my views cannot cover all points relevant to this subject, particularly a philosophical defense of using rational non-realism and instrumentalism as a Christian apologetic.

I will conclude with three thoughts from Christian writers:

“Since sin entered the stream of history…man has..perverted, blunted, diluted, and corrupted that which was originally true truth that did come from God. For us today the only infallible canon for determining truth is the written Word of God. Nature…is limited and can be misread by mankind.” Charles Ryrie

Romans 1 - Reveal - “The pagan world of Paul’s day worshipped idols after the likeness of both men (Athens) and beasts (Egypt). This polytheism was the religious outcome of rationalism, I.e. man’s trust in his ability to know God apart from divine revelation. The Gentiles became futile in their thinking, i.e. in their philosophies. This section [of Rom. 1] has an importance in Paul’s thought and teaching on the moral state of the world in his day. It underlines a. human responsibility which is seen in the way men by their wickedness suppress the truth (v.18), and so have only themselves to thank for their futility and mental aberrations in regard to the knowledge of God (v.21) [I would add Satan’s role here, but let’s let Gary talk]. They deliberately chose to accept a falsehood about God and preferred to represent Him in the form of one of His creation — because (we may infer) such a representation seemed more tangible and real, and made no moral demands on them, so leaving them free to indulge their passions at whim (vv.23-25); b. human pride is exposed as the seat of the strange practice of deifying the creature, for it is a bid to claim wisdom (v.22) that leads to this result, and a reluctance to confess to any sense of obligation to God which would naturally express itself in thankfulness (v.21; c. human accountability which Paul is anxious to understand leaves men without excuse (v.20). This verdict comes as the conclusion of the argument in vv.19,20 to which appeal is often made as support for natural theology. That God may be known from His works in creation is a belief found in Stoic philosophy as well as in those parts of Jewish literature (especially the Wisdom of Solomon) which stand under Greek influence. It may be doubted, however, if Paul is simply accepting this conclusion. Perhaps he is agreeing with the best in pagan and Greek religious belief for the sake of argument (as in Acts 17); more characteristically he insists that such natural knowledge of God leaves men conscious only of their fallen condition and condemned for perverting such knowledge as they have to ignoble ends and so landing them only in the morass of idolatry in the crudest and most ludicrous form (vv21-25). So men, left to themselves, have rejected the inference (of God’s true nature, manifest in His works) and so forfeited this knowledge. The knowledge of God in creation remains an objective possibility, as it were, but the subjective condition for receiving it has been lost. And the consequence is that man, alienated from God, yet haunted by the lost knowledge of God, attempts to recover it by himself, he reaches only distortions and perversions.”

(G.S. Hendry, “Reveal., in A Theological Wordbook of the Bible, ed. A. Richardson, p.198)

“A perfect definition [of species] may no longer be possible in a post-Fall age; the ground has been cursed, and “nature” is no longer normative, even as a foolproof pointer to the truth.”

Dr. Gary North

Written by:
SonnyC, Phoenix, Az., September 2007

sorry, i need to correct a drug induced error, my mind gets unclear:

I meant to say the Thomist school and the Scotist school, which were virtually contemporaeneous in the 13th century, ruled most of the effective theology in Christianity, with the Thomist school winning the debate.

The Augustinian school of the 4th century was of course influential, but at key developmental moments in Catholic theology, took a back seat to these, eventually becoming second to the Thomist after Scotism was set aside.

hank you

Nathan almost had me fooled there for a minute.

Funnily enough I discovered your site when I Googled my name, Nathan Rice. Nice to make your acquaintance sir, I appreciate your putting our name to good use.

I’d just like to point out that Ken Miller of Brown University presents in his speech “The Collapse of Intelligent Design”, recorded in its entirety on youtube.com, what seems to be an explanation for the flagellum’s development. I’m not a biologist so I don’t know if his argument is valid or not but I’d like to read your thoughts on his presentation, whether there are some definitive answers to his arguments.