Question #6: Why Do You Believe In Evolution?
Posted in Evolution, Questions, Science on | 1 minute | 7 Comments →
First allow me to clarify: I’m not asking why you believe that ill-suited organisms tend to die off, leaving better-suited organisms to survive. I’m not asking why you believe in homologous resemblance across species or kingdom. I’m not asking why you believe in variations of alleles. I’m asking—well, I’m asking three questions, actually—and the first one is: in your own words, why do you believe that all of biology is the result of unguided anagesis and/or cladogenesis operating over billions of years? The latter is what I refer to when I use the phrase, “conventional evolutionary narrative.” The second question is: in your own words, what are the strongest challenges to the conventional evolutionary narrative? The third question is: what would it take to make you lose faith in the conventional evolutionary narrative?
Syllabus
says...I reject the premise of unguidedness, and thus your conclusion. :) Had you said “random”, then I might elaborate further.
Are we speaking of the strictly scientific narrative? Or do we also include under that tent the narratives that are usually wedded to them, such as those of evolutionary psychology?
As to the science, I think one of the largest issues has to do with the information carried in DNA and, to a lesser extent, RNA. I don’t draw inferences to design straight from that, but it still seems extremely strange that a process governed by strictly natural and material process should not only produce ordered information, but ordered information where no concept of similar information even existed.
Also, I don’t think punctuated equilibrium is clearly distinguishable from special creation, which makes its scientific merits somewhat questionable.
For a better way of explaining the variations of life on the planet to arise? I honestly don’t know. Maybe for irreducible simplicity to be shown to such a degree that any gradual process explanation is utterly untenable.
cl
says...This seems to imply that you think there is a sense in which a guided process can still be random. Since that strikes me as odd, maybe you’re really implying that a random process can be ultimately guided, i.e., a Creator with intent set a random process in action? If not, well… please elaborate :)
I defined—very precisely—what we are speaking of. No, evolutionary psychology isn’t in the question.
Okay, so… one vote for the presence of information. Got it.
Good point. Adding to that, it’s noteworthy that PE was, in a very real sense, the damage control for gradualism’s failure. Once we learned gradualism was untenable, they went to PE, but as you note, PE is wholly compatible with special creation.
Hmmm… I’m a little confused there. The latter question only applies to those who accept the conventional evolutionary narrative, but, your previous comment seemed to suggest you don’t accept said narrative.
Syllabus
says...Well, to your first question, a random process may be guided in that it has certain definite parameters within which it can be random, but which still resides within these parameters – perhaps these parameters contain a certain goal directed-ness. Of course, since I think that God is the Creator and Sustainer of the universe, the notion of a “clockwork” evolutionary process in which God has no involvement is absurd to me.
Do you mean that my statements about informational properties are incompatible with the common narrative? Well, the strictly materialist version of it, anyway. I have no problem with the idea that God might have front-end loaded the universe and its components with some sort of emergent properties – though I think that at least one thing, namely, the human soul, was directly created – from which informational properties arose. What WOULD be odd is having this sort of inherent informational property in a universe that was only matter, with no Mind to produce the information. The manner in which the information was injected into matter is largely unimportant when compared with the remarkable fact that such a thing is possible at all.
Syllabus
says...So, I guess, the questions don’t truly apply to me, since I reject the “unguided” part. But I would argue that that’s a metaphysical speculation that, though held by many scientists, is not actually something that can be deduced from the science itself.
Kwon Mega
says...Cl,
Wondering if you saw this post by Bruce Charlton:
Is the Christian evolutionist an oxymoron?
and your thoughts on the matter.
cl
says...Hi Kwon Mega.
No, I hadn’t seen it, thanks for pointing me in that direction. I’m typing up a response as we speak, and I’ll post it later today or over the weekend. BTW, do you mind if I ask where you stand with the Lord? Atheist? Some form of theist? Christian?
If you don’t feel comfortable answering I understand. Feel free to email me, or, feel free to disregard the question entirely. I’m not trying to put you on the spot or call you out or anything like that. I’m just trying to learn a little more about my readers.
Cheers.
Kwon Mega
says...I’d be happy to provide some background information, but would prefer to do so via email. If you shoot me one, I’ll be happy to respond.