Who doubts common descent? You’d be surprised
| March 30, 2007 | Posted by O'Leary under Intelligent Design |
Here at Uncommon Descent, a longish combox discussion started recently – which spread here after I reposted some of my own comments at the Post-Darwinist – on whether the intelligent design guys would gain or lose credibility if they kicked out the young earth creationists (YECs, the folk who believe that the Bible teaches that the earth was created in 144 hours and therefore it must be true).
My own view is that it is politically astonishingly naive to think that the intelligent design-friendly scientists who accept universal common descent would gain anything by starting a big fight with:
(1) a lay young earth creation ministry like Answers in Genesis (which says negative things about ID from time to time)
or
(2) an astronomer-run old earth creation ministry like Hugh Ross’s Reasons to Believe (which also says negative things about ID from time to time),
let alone
(3) those YECs such as Paul Nelson who choose to work with the ID folk who accept conventional age of the earth and common ancestry.
Basically, anyone who adopts a non-materialist stance of any type on anything will be persecuted by the materialists dominant in science and public policy today. That’s just a fact. Non-materialists who squabble among themselves waste time that could be going into developing their own positions more fully. This is a matter of political common sense and actually has nothing to do with the legitimacy or usefulness of YEC ideas.
In my book, By Design or by Chance?, I took a couple of chapters to examine, in a neutral way, the origin of young earth creationism – where and how did it originate and who does it appeal to?
As a movement among American Protestants, YEC originated in the early 1960s. (Note: William Jennings Bryant of Scopes trial fame – the real trial, not the Inherit the Wind movie – was an old earth creationist like astronomer Hugh Ross.)
I personally view young earth creationism as an attempt to confront the growing impact of materialism by adopting literalist Bible interpretation. I don’t think it’s true and I don’t think it works. Beyond that, I don’t think literalism is the best way to understand the Bible. I have been criticized by YECs for my views and also by self-proclaimed Christians in science who think that I should have ridiculed YECs – as if that was going to help me or my readers understand them better.
That said, the real issues are far more complex than many people realize anyway. Paul Nelson, that YEC biologist who does work with the ID guys, wrote to me yesterday, offering a quiz of sorts, by way of illustrating the complexity:
Quick! Who said this?
1. “The phenomenon of a monophyletic origin for the universal Tree of Life probably did not occur…At the macro-scale life appears to have had many origins.”
ÂÂ
2. “Darwin claimed that a unique inclusively hierarchical pattern of relationships between all organisms based on their similarities and differences [the Tree of Life (TOL)] was a fact of nature, for which evolution, and in particular a branching process of descent with modification, was the explanation. However, there is no independent evidence that the natural order is an inclusive hierarchy, and incorporation of prokaryotes into the TOL is especially
problematic. The only data sets from which we might construct a universal hierarchy including prokaryotes, the sequences of genes, often disagree and can seldom be proven to agree. Hierarchical structure can always be imposed on or extracted from such data sets by algorithms designed to do so, but at its base the universal TOL rests on an unproven assumption about pattern that, given what we know about process, is unlikely to be broadly true.”
ÂÂ
Well, if these people are arguing against the proposition that all life arose from a single randomly generated cell billions of years ago, they must be raving creationist lunatics, right?
The answers, as offered by Paul Nelson
1. Malcolm Gordon, a professor of evolutionary biology at UCLA (See his 1999 paper, “The Concept of Monophyly.” for the details.)
2. W. Ford Doolittle, in his recent (2007) Inaugural Article as a foreign member of the National Academy of Sciences
Are these guys young earth creationists? Not ruddy likely. Actually, nowadays, you do not have to be a young earth creationist or any type of creationist or ID advocate to disbelieve in universal common descent from a single ancestor. Plus, he says – just to complicate the picture – most of the young ID advocates over at Telic Thoughts are “vocal advocates” of universal common descent.
The problem with multiple origins of life by chance alone is that staggering complexities face the origin of life even once. Assuming it happened a number of times without design would seem only to add to the problems faced by materialism, rather than subtracting from them.
So we live in interesting times. I think a fight between ID advocates and young earth creationists would be a sideshow compared to the growing row between materialists and non-materialists.
Here are some other stories at the Post-Darwinist:
A communist view of the intelligent design controversy? It is unlikely that Darwin’s heirs will wish to make these tributes to the master’s teachings front and centre.
ID in Italy: Italian newspapers dare to doubt Darwin?
Muslim ID advocate argues that materialism, not Christianity, is what so many Muslims hate about America
49 Responses to Who doubts common descent? You’d be surprised
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Hi Salvador.
Is Barry Setterfield’s speed of light decay theory really legit?
Thanks Jerry, for that info.
Before I signed on here I read the “Uncommondescent holds that…”
Reference is made to “scientific” a number of times.
Why would a person inclined to YEC want to get involved with what is described as “scientific”?
If I would insist the Universe was only 6000 years how would all the things we observe make any sense? What would happen to Black Holes, to gravitational lenses, to the speed of light, to the geological record? What would happen to all the predictions that science makes and all the reasonably tight cross-checks of distance measures of distant galaxies? What about general and special relativistic laws that accurately predict what is observed? And the list goes on and on…
Science is also applied to language. It observes the way words and syntax make meaning. So, for example, if the word “day” is used differently in different parts of the Bible, how can literalist interpretation make any sense? Even in Genesis one, “day” is used differently.
That is the way liberalism works: something is observed, but something else is wished for. So what is wished for is proven by a mental transformation of what is observed. That is not science.
Can YEC offer any data to show that literalism works? Belief without data, like faith without works, is totally useless — and dangerous. At the best, there is more opportunity for disagreement; at worst, you get the Jonestown type tragedies.
My little GPS unit tells me where I am. Without using the laws of modern science (general and special relativity plus the speed of light) it wouldn’t work.
Why such an intense fixation on 6 days and 6000 years when every observation would indicate otherwise?
Is it really true that I’m on the wrong Webpage?
eebrom,
You will have to ask the YEC’s what their data is. They supposedly have a whole host of research that supports their viewpoint. They often talk of evidence that the Flood happened and caused most of the earth’s geological formations such as the Grand Canyon. YEC’s have generated a lot of the anti-Darwin findings and as such ID is indebted and several have Ph.D’s in various fields. One scientist runs an extremely interesting website which analyzes published research on evolution. It is called creationsafaris.com.
I do not have your experience with cosmology. To me the geology of the world sinks everything about a young earth. How do you explain
1) the mid Atlantic ridge and the constant building of new ocean floor and the several reversals of the magnetic field on the ocean floor
2) volcanic islands following the movement of the plates and each island can be measured with distinct differences the farther you get away from the hot points
3) mountain ranges, which have not moved more than a few feet in recorded history but contain fossils of sea creatures
etc.
I am sure YEC have an explanation for everything and I gather the Flood is an all purpose explanation for a lot of things though I do not know how that would explain the mid Atlantic ridge.
If you are looking for a website that is pro ID and does not have YEC, then I am not sure if there is one. As I said some here may have some suggestions. The energy to generate these websites takes people with some commitment and I doubt there are too many besides the YEC’s who would want to take it on. Part of their identity is centered on this issue while those from most other religions and ideologies are primarily centered on something else.
However, there are enough people here who are not YEC that you can discuss anything with them if they have the time. Several of the moderators are not YEC and everyone is fairly reasonable to talk with, again if they have time.
By the way I enjoyed your comments about literalism since I am definitely not one who believes in it, especially on Genesis.
Stereotyping is nothing but a form of sophistry. Constant droning about how YEC is incompatible with science betrays a lack of vigor in understanding what drives various world views.
YEC begins, unapologetically, from the standpoint that the Bible is true, and means what it says, and is supposed to be taken literally, except where the immediate context would suggest otherwise.
YECs are well aware of the fact that scientific observations suggests a much older age of the universe than a literal reading of the Bible does. From the standpoint of a YEC, science will approach the reliability of the Bible when it can predict the future.
Believing in a young earth will not cause the universe to implode, nor black holes to blink out of existence. YEC does not undo the history of science. It does not bite children, cause computer viruses, or reverse the arrow of time.
Let’s not pretend that somehow materialism, apart from YEC, is based on the facts, and is an objective conclusion reached after studying a wealth of scientific evidence. Much like the constraints upon YECs, materialists must fit scientific discoveries within the tight constraints of naturalism. Both YEC and materialism BEGIN with a claim about the nature of the universe as we know it, and make the data fit the view, at least to a large degree.
YEC begins with the Bible. Materialism begins with Atheism, even anti-theism. Neither of these world views is the result of scientific discovery, arrived at after extensive research into the wealth of available scientific data. For these reasons, YEC is no more incompatible with science than materialism is, it just picks different things to hold to based on faith, irrespective of whatever the scientific community at large thinks it knows about the universe at any given time (read dark matter).
The main thing that YEC has in common with ID is the IMPLICATION of the theory, that nature suggests intelligence. An honest YEC can support ID not because ID says ANYTHING AT ALL about Biblical creation, but because ID suggests what YEC has held all along: that nature reveals a designing intelligence.
To many in the YEC crowd, ID is a breath of fresh air, not because it shares a methodology or even a philosophical starting point with YEC, but because ID proponents are promoting an understanding of science that is not forced to begin and end with a naturalistic world view. It’s really not much more complicated than that, I suspect.
The majority of both YEC and ID proponets understand the limited overlap of the two viewpoints. Thus YECs understand that ID has nothing really to do with YEC, and vice versa. Both materialists and ID proponents are free to dispise YEC, for whatever various reasons, but we’ve been around for at least 6,000 years, and so far we haven’t gone away. When the time comes for vindication, I promise not to say “I told you so.” =D
There are just so many problems with the YEC viewpoint. I would like to believe in a young earth and not in evolution but it just doesn’t work.
I am forced by the evidence to take viewpoint along the lines of Denton (Nature’s Destiny), Dyson and Tipler.
If YEC does begin to provide overwhelming evidence to the contrary, no one will be more pleased than me. Until then though
I am forced to believe in an old universe, an old earth and directed
evolution.
On the surface it would be politically counterproductive for ID to distance itself from YECs. Yet imagine imagine you are part of a hypothetical group that supports a cause you strongly believe in. Say, for instance, it’s bringing much needed attention to a rare and poorly researched disease affecting children. Let’s call the disease cribetes. And there is another, perhaps even larger, group of individuals that shares your passion. Only their approach is a little different than yours. They embark on a series of bombing campaigns, destroying department stores by sending in puppies wrapped in dynamite.
Now you can refuse to dissociate yourself from them on account of solidarity for a common cause, but it doesn’t do much for your overall credibility. Particularly when you’re trying to establish your movement as scientifically grounded.
great ape
While I agree in principle with what you wrote I don’t think your analogy comparing YECs to people putting bombs in puppies to blow up department stores is anywhere near apt. But as long as we’re on the topic of unsavory political alliances I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention the militant Darwinian atheists on your side whom I affectionately refer to as Church Burnin’ Ebola Boys. My analogy, unlike yours, has some basis in reality. I could include the Columbine shooters on your side too. At any rate I guess we all have our crosses to bear in this regard but yours is a much greater burden IMO.
Denyse
There are two seemingly unassailable observations about life that strike a common descent chord.
1) All life we’ve looked at so far, prokaryotes and eukaryotes alike, employ a virtually identical genetic code as well as an organelle called the ribosome which builds proteins specified by that common code. I’ve yet to hear any explanation for this other than common descent that doesn’t sound contrived although Carl Woese and a couple others have made reasonable cases for life originating possibly a few times in its earliest history then consolidating around these commonalities.
2) The law of biogenesis. Living things have been directly observed coming from another living thing literally billions of times throughout recorded history. There has been no observation of life coming from non-life. A rule with so many observations, no exceptions, and perfect predictability are promoted from from theory to law (or at least in any scientific discipline other than biology they are promoted from theory to law). Life only comes from life is a law just as much as things fall toward the center of the earth instead of falling up away from it (gravitational attraction).
Alone either of these in isolation is exceedingly strong evidence for common descent but together are virtually inarguable in a scientific context IMO.
If I may answer that question with a question: how is the word “day” used in our day? How was it used in our father’s day?
Answering a question with a question is a rhetorical device. Are you to understand that I really want an answer to that question, or am I using the question to make a point? Does a literal interpretation of my question force you to conclude that I expect an answer, or can you literally interpret the quesiton as rhetoric?
Stepping aside from rhetorical devices for a moment, I might also choose a literary device, like using the word “day” to represent a definite or indefinite period of time: “In my day, we would never dream of disrespecting our elders.” The context clearly indicates an anachronism, an indefinite period of time in the past that has come to an end.
I might go on to say, “That day was the worst day of my life.” Even this limited context strongly indicates that I mean a literal day. Just because I also use the word in a broader literary sense does not deny the more rigid interpretation in this example, nor does it’s latter use force me to interpret the previous example as a literal day.
I think it’s reasonable to assert that literal Bible interpretation does not prevent one from understanding, even expecting, that literary tools be used by its Author to make a point, convey depth of meaning, express emotion, elicit thought.
I think it’s pretty obvious that here the reader is expected to ask himself a series of questions, chiefly, “What is God’s Son’s name?” We can safely assume that the Author is not seeking input from the reader. Does a literal reading of this passage demand that we attempt to answer this question, just because it is being asked? No, it is a rhetorical device of sorts, intended to evoke thought. If we are clever enough to use these devices, certainly the Author is as well.
I just want to point out that one can hold to “Young” Earth and “Old” Universe view, consistently. One does not contradict the other. As a matter of fact, large group of YECs subscribe to this notion.
If anyone is interested in a more thoughtful article about the “days” of Creation, article may be found here:
http://www.grisda.org/origins/21005.htm
I think very simply the problem with the association of ID with YEC is that one is non-religious and is focused on some narrow aspects of science and has a broader philosophy of science than the current scientific community while the other has a very definite religious agenda, a much wider scientific interest and has a different much narrower philosophy of science than the current scientific community.
It is this religious agenda and philosophy of science differences that drive the controversy. Like the Darwinists, the YEC science conclusions must fit a world view so in that way the Darwinists and YEC’s are somewhat alike in terms of how they make scientific conclusions.
For ID and YEC to walk hand in hand to defeat materialist science conclusions, it would be difficult to for these two movements to disassociate their very big differences on religion and philosophy of science.
Remember it is not the materialists that ID is seeking to change but the average person who is not really aware of the details of the controversy. Right now they think ID is a religious movement with a narrow philosophy of science when it is really just the opposite.
So tell me how working with the YEC’s helps dispel this misconception. It doesn’t. It reinforces it.
“I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention the militant Darwinian atheists on your side whom I affectionately refer to as Church Burnin’ Ebola Boys. My analogy, unlike yours, has some basis in reality. ” –ds
Fair enough, but I personally make a point to disapprove of the church-burning approach when the occasion arises and, every now and then, important folks such as Collins, Orr, etc do so as well. Despite what the impression may be from sites such as Pharyngula, these ebola boys represent only a handful of evolutionary biologists.
Dave:
1) All life we’ve looked at so far, prokaryotes and eukaryotes alike, employ a virtually identical genetic code as well as an organelle called the ribosome which builds proteins specified by that common code. I’ve yet to hear any explanation for this other than common descent that doesn’t sound contrived
Assuming God doesn’t exist that is the only explanation. Assuming, He does then of course, it’s not.
We know, without doubt, that natural selection, mutation, gene flow etc. influence how life develops and behaves.
The question then becomes is it possible for these forces to cause a single cell to evolve into all the types of life on Earth. It’s not been established and I don’t see how it’s possible.
So that leaves either some unknown force that caused all life to evolve from a common ancestor or all life did not evolve from a common ancestor.
Now, life can only come from life which leaves us with the obvious question as to where the first life came from.
Obviously some unknown (in the scientific sense) force made it. If this force made it once, why not twice? Or three or four or a dozen or a hundred times, and in groups of cells, to the point where RM +NS makes starts?
jerry
Excellent point re Darwinists and YEC alike in that they start off with faith that something is true then spin the facts to fit the faith.
You’re redeemed and off moderation.
YEC may well be ID’s “baggage,” but it’s not ID’s problem. The implications of ID’s acceptance in the scientific community is the dethroning of the materialist oligarchy.
The creationist label is a convenient pejorative with which to label ID proponents. Since creationism is considered Darwinism’s defeated foe, it makes good sense that the NDEs want to associate the two, to avoid answering the tough questions.
Casting off the YEC “millstone” will not allow ID to escape the theory’s own ramifications: that there is a designing intelligence at the root of the natural world. It’s this concept — not a young earth — that causes such a reaction in the materialist community.
As far as I can tell, ID doesn’t accept YEC, but rather tolerates it.
As long as the implications of ID are theological, even though the theory itself is not, it’s going to be the target of the anti-religeous, and is going to be stereotyped as creation.
Jerry & DS
Yes, yes, conclusions reinforcing premises. [notwithstanding Augustine's comments about faith and understanding.]
IF you have the patience, and can see the Canadian TV Discovery channel indoctrinmentary “Global Warning” you will see just how far this sort of post-normal science can go. Appalling to say the least.
Anyway, I’m glad I wondered “out loud” about YECism. If the discussion can proceed without typical forum rancor then the S/N ratio must be OK.
As a kid my church affiliation was thick into YEC soup but never could I swallow it.
I do have friends that thrive on it. I also have friends that are taken in by global warming alarmism.
Yet, as a born skeptic, there would be a certain amount of “inner delight” if, in the end, I turned out to be wrong.
My observation is that, often, when you get individuals out of their herd, they become more reasonable. Just look at the number of anti global warming scientists who happen to be retired!
If the speed of light is constant over time and space, the physical evidence would almost surely force us to conclude the universe is old.
If that is the case, then we have the following possibilities:
1. The Bible is not God’s Word
2. The Bible is God’s word, but the YEC interpretation is wrong
6 years ago, I was completely willing to accept #1 and/or #2. At this stage in my life, I do believe God is the Creator, that Behe’s IC argument is most easily answered via Special Creation, and that the physical evidence suggests universe did not evolve via Big Bang Cosmology, but via special creation.
My former professor James Trefil wrote the famous chapter “Why Galaxies Can’t Exists” to highlight problems with Big Bang Cosmology. His partial solution was Dark Matter, but we have never touched or handled or measured Dark Matter in the lab. It’s a total kluge. The better solution is special creation of the Galaxies and Stars.
Now, it seems to me at best we can’t make hard fast assertions about the universe being old. I tentatively think Setterfield is correct, Humphreys is wrong, and for sure Gish is wrong.
I love Gish, but I can’t assent to his created light arguments. Gish’s hypothesis is at variance with Romans 1:20.
God would make the world such that we will be forced to follow the evidence where it leads, and that eventually only certain conclusions will make sense. If Setterfield is correct, then Romans 1:20 will have been fulfilled for the laws of physics. If Romans 1:20 is followed literally, “appearce of age arguments” are actually unscriptural….
Salvador
Visit his website:
http://www.setterfield.org
Salvador
[...] Who doubts common descent? You’d be surprised | [...]
[...] Who doubts common descent? You’d be surprised | [...]