Board index ‹ Creation and Evolution

[Newbie]

As a creationist, what do you think about the recurrent laryngeal nerve (makes a massive and unnecessary detour around the heart on its path from the larynx in the throat to the brain)? This video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO1a1Ek-HD0) is a recurrent laryngeal nerve in a giraffe. We share the same nerve and it takes the same path. In the giraffe, however, it illustrates how poor that nerve path is, considering the length of the neck.

Is this poor design? A sign of common ancestry? Proof for evolution? Or does anyone think there is good reason to have a nerve designed this way?
Please watch the entire video if you haven't seen it. Its less than 5 minutes. If you have I still recommend re-watching before answering.

[jimwalton]

Sure, I'm a creationist, but you attack a straw man when you assume that a creationist by definition excludes any process. The story of creation in the Bible doesn't specify a process, so if God wanted to use the evolutionary process to bring about his creation, he's allowed to do that. Science cannot pinpoint the causative mechanism, and the Bible doesn't specify the process, so there's no inherent contradiction in creationism and the possibility for process. Evolutionary science observes a history of mutations, evidence for those mutations, and has made informed guesses as to how some of the transitions occurred. There is nothing inherent in the science to suggest the process was unguided. The biological process doesn't reveal to us the mechanism of causality, therefore the field is open for scientific and philosophical speculation. It's quite possible to believe in creation and be a creationist, and believe in science and the processes of evolution.

[Newbie]

The mutations are random. The natural selection is non-random and works due to the laws of physics. Where would you include the 'guidance' of an intelligent creator here?

[jimwalton]

How do you know they're random? Darwinism would argue that there is a naturalistic mechanism driving the process of descent with modification: the most popular candidate is natural selection operating on random genetic mutation, although some other processes are also sometimes proposed. And that's the point. What were the processes? The Bible claims that God has created, and then acted in such a way to accomplish his mission. This can easily be consistent with Darwinism. if God made them, a Christian may argue, it makes no difference how he made them, whether instantly or gradually. Darwinism, as you have said, claims that that the mutations are random and have come about by natural selection winnowing random genetic mutation. What's to eliminate the possibility that God might have caused the right mutations to arise at the right time, possibly preserving certain species from extinction, etc.?

But I sense you're wondering if random genetic mutations could be cause by God. Aren't they, by definition, a matter of chance? I'm quite sure that randomness, as defined by contemporary biologists, doesn't have this implication. Ernst Mayr said, “When it is said that mutation or variation is random, the statement simply means that there is no correlation between the production of new genotypes and the adaptational needs of an organism in a given environment.” Elliott Sober (a respected philosopher of biology) said, “There is no physical mechanism (either inside organisms or outside of them) that detects which mutations would be beneficial and causes those mutations to occur." So their being random in that sense is clearly compatible with the possibility of their caused by God.

[Newbie]

This was a great response, thanks.

Your definition of random does not exclude the traditional definition. Something is determined to be mathematically random if it is observed to be so.
But regardless of whether the mutations are random or not, we do know the physical and chemical mechanisms by which mutations arise. This does not leave room for God to be making decisions to determine our evolution.

[jimwalton]

God is only excluded from the process if one's presuppositions de facto exclude him. For instance, according to Isaac Newton himself (and classical science), natural laws describe how the world works when, or provided that, the world is a closed (or isolated) system, subject to no outside causal influence. In other words, the laws apply when no resultant external force acts of a system. But this picture is nowhere nearly sufficient for "this does not leave room for God." First of all (and quite importantly, Newton himself [one hopes!]) accepted the Newtonian picture and yet he, being a believer in God, didn't accept the necessity of "Well, there's no room for God." Now, I realize I'm talking about the laws of nature, as they are called, and not evolution, per se, though I think the argument applies. Just because we know the physical and chemical mechanisms by which mutations arise, you have yet to address why there is no room for a metaphysical causative mechanism. I think our powers are a bit lacking for that. Even Thomas Huxley suggested the possibility that God could have arranged initial conditions in such a way that the results he wanted would be forthcoming. I guess I don't see anything inherently in classical science (or quantum mechanics for that matter) that necessarily precludes the possibility of a force outside of the closed system (since science can only look at what is within the system) unless your philosophical presuppositions exclude that as a choice from the outset.

[Newbie]

Perhaps a creator god who set the initial conditions for the universe cannot be excluded, but I should think that one who intervenes with or makes decision for the universe as it develops surely can. Since we know the physical processes driving evolution, then how can we insist that there exists an intelligence guiding the development of life? The physical processes can only provide one outcome. There is no decision-making involved.

[jimwalton]

But that is exactly my point. On what basis can you guarantee that the process has not been guided? There is nothing necessary to the process of evolution that excludes, as you say, some decision-making in the background. First of all, how would you even tell if it was there, and secondly, how can you warrant that it was/is not? You are stretching the capacity of the scientific method if you can assure me that science knows enough about the causative mechanism to exclude a force from outside the system. It's not a conclusive argument. We do know the physical processes, but how does that exclude even the possibility of divine processes? I don't think you can say that with any certainly except by opinion. Maybe that's consistent with your presuppositions, but it's not biologically necessary. The Neo-Darwinian scientific theory of evolution doesn't prove that God necessarily doesn't exist. It's because evolution doesn't pronounce on such question, although you have.

You ask, "How can we insist that there exists an intelligence guiding the development of life?" Well, it is certainly true that everything that demonstrates a progression from means to ends and is such that we know whether or not it was designed by some intelligence, in fact was designed by intelligence. And this is exactly what life and the universe exhibit. The basic physical constants of our universe have incredibly (or even miraculously) narrow limits within which they must fall for life to have evolved. The millions, or billions or trillions, of chance occurrences, at the right time, and in an acceptable sequence are staggeringly improbable (though remotely possible) by sheer random chance. Theism claims that a divine being could have fine-tuned the constants and guided the process. into what we see as a truly remarkable and cohesive balance. Naturalism, insisting that all these constants have their values by chance, and that every mutation was totally random results in an exceedingly improbable result. The evidence, actually, more supports biology and physics guided by an intelligent deity than the improbability of naturalism.

And I guess it also surprises me that you claim "the physical processes can only provide one outcome." Isn't the point of evolution that the possible outcomes are multiple, depending on environment, forces, dumb luck, etc.?