Through the Lens: Evolution, "What About Transitional Forms?

[ryanbouma]

Sort of, but not really. Especially the last one.

What evidence from the picture are you basing your observation on?

What! You asked:

Between the wolf-like skull at the top and the dolphin skull at the bottom, do the other skulls look consistent with time-ordered and morphology-ordered intermediates?

My answer is no. It's pretty simple. The evidence is my subjective interpretation. You asked a subjective question and you got a subjective answer. Honestly, they don't look transitional to me. They look akward in fact. Those skulls look like they could have been from just about any kind of animal in my opinion.

[jlay]

What if I show you 20 date-ordered fossils, which form a "movie" morphing a wolf-life mammal into a dolphin. Would those fossils be consistent with the proposed dolphin ancestry?

Wow? You have a transitional quadraped mammal, with a fully formed fluke? Please, do share

Focus please. To keep the discussion simple for now, we're only talking about evidence supporting skull fossil intermediates. Is the shown fossil evidence, by itself, reasonable evidence of intermediates between a 50 million year old wolf-like mammal and a dolphin? Later we can talk about your tail lobe (fluke) issues.

Focus? What could be more focused than simply providing a slam dunk for Darwinism. A quadraped with a fluke would end the discussion.

[Thadeyus]

Focus? What could be more focused than simply providing a slam dunk for Darwinism. A quadruped with a fluke would end the discussion.

So...you're saying only something like a 'croc-o-duck' would be acceptable to yourself as how evolution works, then?

Much cheers to all.

[Kurieuo]

I'm kind of thinking that ...

An excellent post covering the issues, and worthy of a re-read.

Thanks Morny, I tried my best to be fair in my critique, of both sides.

Clarifying just a couple points relating to my post ...

There needs to be an objective, unambiguous method for identifying which similarities truly are homologies rather than analogies.

Yes! Alas, such an "unambiguous method" does not exist in science.

But, I'm saying it's ultimately a pointless exercise because a whole lot more is needed to prove they are indeed transitional than similarity.

Again, yes. But unfortunately science (via the scientific method) cannot "prove" anything. Anyone waiting for science to prove evolution is going to be disappointed (or here, maybe I should say "happy").

Ahh, your own honesty is refreshing.

So what good is science?! By accumulating multiple independent lines of supporting evidence, science can only give us increasing levels of confidence in a theory.

I don't really see this as a problem with science, but rather a philosophical matter of epistemic justification.

There is no field of rational enquiry that can provide 100% certainty -- whether you're talking physical sciences, philosophy, theology or maybe something else.

However, that doesn't mean we can't be certain about knowledge or matters of truth. It just means if we're wrong, then our knowledge of the matter was wrong. Is there such a thing as "correct knowledge" and "incorrect knowledge"? It is a philosophical question. Not everything thinks so, but I'm inclined to think so.

While you don't believe God exists, from my way of looking at things it seems to me only an entity like God, from which all has come and been structured to work according to predictable laws, could really know reality in an objective manner such that 100% certainty can be had.

Whether or not you see something in that, I certainly consider that belief in a being such "God" provides solid epistemic foundations where empirical methods of enquiry can be affirmed as rationally justified and so embraced. It provides a type of coherentism to my beliefs including faith in empirical methods. On the other hand, materialism wherein everything just is, what epistemic basis do we have to affirm any reliability? Just offering some food for thought.

Furthermore, the embedded philosophical assumptions rule out other possible explanations such as "similar design" scenarios. ...

Nothing I can say here will change opinions in the slightest, but I have to say this anyway ... science lives by methodological naturalism, not philosophical naturalism. Methodological naturalism is only a provisional assumption that the scientific method is the best approach we currently have. And the hyper-spectacular success of the last 400+ hundred years has justifiably raised confidence in that assumption.

I live with methodological naturalism's annoying practicality. But I love "design" explanations, because science is so much easier when finding inconsistent/invalidating evidence is so much harder. Confirming one rabbit fossil in the pre-Cambrian destroys current evolutionary theory. With "design"? No problem.

I don't see that Methodological Naturalism precludes design. It is quite neutral to the matter, unless one wishes to impose Philosophical Naturalism upon scientific enquiry.

Your creating a dichotomy between "evolutionary theory" and "design" reveals that Philosophical Naturalism actually undergirds your science. That is, you bring to the table certain philosophical assumptions about the world, which an examination of the physical world that we find ourselves within (i.e., science) is actually neutral to. In fact, many early scientists were encouraged to examine the natural workings of the world, because they wanted to understand how God designed things to work. Theism undergirded the science of scientists like Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Boyle, and Pascal. And guess what? It didn't obstruct scientific enquiry but helped it flourish.

If you read Darwin's letters, he even had a belief in God, albeit perhaps wavering belief in God later in life.

At the end of the day, I want to know the truth of reality -- what is most likely explanation regardless of philosophical constraints on reality. Philosophical Naturalism is a view of reality that restricts certain explanations to a closed "physical" world. Theism is a view of reality that opens up explanations. Science helps us understand the physical world around us. What we draw from that is a matter for philosophical thinking.

While I will not associate myself anymore one way or another, it is interesting most of the central figures in Intelligent Design movement believe in common ancestry AND design. Furthermore, there are many theologians, Theists and Christians who embrace evolutionary theory while yet retaining a belief in design.

As for your "design" no problems, if only it were that simple. Certainly, that's a response I'd expect from an Atheist. Thinking a "God did it" mentality will be so rife that it stops rather than encourages scientific enquiry. Do you really honestly believe that a scientist who believes in God, would be less of a scientist than an Atheist? For that is what follows from such rhetoric.

Within "design" or "Creation" scenarios, many want to know how God did it and not simply that God did it. And knowing facts about what happened prove/disprove certain positions on Creation. Philosophical Naturalism really have one explanation that depends upon evolution, yet within Divine Creation there are many different scenarios. Some embrace evolution, such as Theistic Evolution, others base their beliefs on a certain interpretation of Scripture at the expense of scientific understanding (e.g., YEC), and yet others that try to harmonise both Scripture and science (Day-Age, and TE might see themselves in this category too).

[Morny]

Even if all the assumptions about the age of these were true, we have no evidence that any of the fossils are related directly to each other.

My answer is no. It's pretty simple.

Thank you for your opinions on my question about weighing evidence on a specific claim.

My opinion is that the reasonable response to my narrow and specific question is clear-cut enough, that your strong disagreement on this simple point sadly makes finding any common ground with science about common ancestry next to impossible.

[Morny]

Focus? What could be more focused than simply providing a slam dunk for Darwinism. A quadraped with a fluke would end the discussion.

Hmmm... Like trying to herd a cat.

[Morny]

...

Another nice post. A good summary of God vs. design vs. philosophical naturalism for everyone to understand.

I do not hold to philosophical naturalism, so much of your discussion doesn't apply to me, or for most scientists, as far as I can tell. As I said before, a provisional assumption of methodological naturalism via the scientific method seems to be the best approach for scientific progress. And such a view does not necessarily preclude separate theological beliefs.

But the methodological naturalism sandbox has well-defined borders, within which science plays. Speculations about what's outside the sandbox are fine and normal, and may even be true, but are not science. To play with the kids from philosophical naturalism or theology, go to their sandboxes. But don't be surprised when you all have different and incompatible rules of play.

If someone finds a better sandbox rule than methodological naturalism, I'll be the first to switch.

As for your "design" no problems, if only it were that simple.

OK. Please briefly sketch a (the?) design theory, and then identify a scientific discovery that would invalidate that theory. Otherwise, how can we distinguish between opinion and evidence-based theory?

Many discoveries have invalidated flawed scientific theories. How great (but not perfect) methodological naturalism is! Bad theories fall, and good theories gain confidence.

I'm confident that my original picture shows possible fossil intermediates, not because of my philosophy/religion, or because I want to, but because multiple independent skull features look like date-ordered intermediates.

[Kurieuo]

...

Another nice post. A good summary of God vs. design vs. philosophical naturalism for everyone to understand.

I do not hold to philosophical naturalism, so much of your discussion doesn't apply to me, or for most scientists, as far as I can tell. As I said before, a provisional assumption of methodological naturalism via the scientific method seems to be the best approach for scientific progress. And such a view does not necessarily preclude separate theological beliefs.

But the methodological naturalism sandbox has well-defined borders, within which science plays. Speculations about what's outside the sandbox are fine and normal, and may even be true, but are not science. To play with the kids from philosophical naturalism or theology, go to their sandboxes. But don't be surprised when you all have different and incompatible rules of play.

If someone finds a better sandbox rule than methodological naturalism, I'll be the first to switch.

As for your "design" no problems, if only it were that simple.

OK. Please briefly sketch a (the?) design theory, and then identify a scientific discovery that would invalidate that theory. Otherwise, how can we distinguish between opinion and evidence-based theory?

Many discoveries have invalidated flawed scientific theories. How great (but not perfect) methodological naturalism is! Bad theories fall, and good theories gain confidence.

I'm confident that my original picture shows possible fossil intermediates, not because of my philosophy/religion, or because I want to, but because multiple independent skull features look like date-ordered intermediates.

It seems I may have misunderstood you, but nonetheless I think it very important to remember that "evolution" and "design" are very logically compatible.

They are not necessarily contradictory unless one assumes Philosophical Naturalism or a particular view of Creation such as YEC and Day-Age. Theistic Evolution sustains both elements -- "evolution" and "design" in a philosophically neutral manner. So if this issue is something that keeps you from a minimalist belief in God, ultimately it's not an issue at all.

I do not believe in the physical sciences that there is any alternative to Methodological Naturalism. If we want to know how the world around us works then this empirical method of pursuing knowledge of reality is what we have to use. Otherwise we're not going to find out how God made things to work, or if you don't have a belief in God, we're not going to find out how the world around us is structured.

Re: Design theories...

In Young Earth Creation it is believed that Earth is not billions of years old, but rather only 6,000 up to most 100,000 years old. This clashes with what we understand through scientific investigation of nature. So much so, a common sense approach (sorry Jac) would look to other translations of Scripture that might be compatible (that is, if one cherishes Scripture as divine revelation as many Christians do). That is, only if someone originally held to YEC.

Day-Age Creation also makes many truth claims. RTB in particular are strong advocates of this creation theory and dedicate themselves quite heavily to defending it: http://www.reasons.org/about/our-creati ... l-approach

A Framework understanding of Genesis which is rather quite neutral about how God did it, tends to provide a comfortable place for Christians who are Theistic Evolutionists and who still take Scripture with some seriousness.

Science as we generally understand it today, doesn't determine who is right or wrong. It doesn't even determine which theories are more correct, theories often developed via logic and reason. And logic and reason comes via philosophy. Natural facts about our world that we see or uncover is simply a source of data we use to develop competing theories. Scientific theories are really a mix of both natural scientific exploration and philosophy.

Similarly, Scripture is seen by many Christians as another source of data about reality. Logic and reason gets applied to Scripture to come up with different scenarios. It may sound absurd to someone who are not Christian, but theology is all very rigorous with competing theories at stake all of which pay attention to nature, philosophy and depending on one's own liberalness, also Scripture. So much so, the events major schisms have happened throughout history, for example, the likes of Martin Luther's theological ideas based on Scripture and reason alone.

Traditionally, "science" is understood as encompassing all fields of rational enquiry that attempt to understand matters of truth. The physical/natural sciences are but one area of science, but that doesn't mean other areas like philosophy or theology are any less scientific in process. Sounds strange given Modernity has changed our perception of "science" to that which represents the "physical sciences"... but this important fact shouldn't be lost. Especially to those who just think a Christians will just assume "design" and think nothing more. No, there are many competing theories and always will be that force one to be pressed further, and press further.

[pat34lee]

Re: Design theories...

In Young Earth Creation it is believed that Earth is not billions of years old, but rather only 6,000 up to most 100,000 years old. This clashes with what we understand through scientific investigation of nature. So much so, a common sense approach (sorry Jac) would look to other translations of Scripture that might be compatible (that is, if one cherishes Scripture as divine revelation as many Christians do). That is, only if someone originally held to YEC.

Not correct. The young earth model of creation is the only one that bears up under scrutiny. The only reason people (even scientists) are fooled is they don't know what an old earth/solar system/universe would look like.

Traditionally, "science" is understood as encompassing all fields of rational enquiry that attempt to understand matters of truth. The physical/natural sciences are but one area of science, but that doesn't mean other areas like philosophy or theology are any less scientific in process. Sounds strange given Modernity has changed our perception of "science" to that which represents the "physical sciences"... but this important fact shouldn't be lost. Especially to those who just think a Christians will just assume "design" and think nothing more. No, there are many competing theories and always will be that force one to be pressed further, and press further.

Truth is one thing that is forever outside of science. Facts and theory are its domain. Why is this? Because facts are mutable; they change according to the situation, the observer and observed. Example, it is night. This is true, as in factual where I am, but it is not truth because it does not apply to everyone or everywhere. Depending on what you believe, truth is either a theoretical concept or a thing which is always the same, regardless of anything else. Example, YHWH (God) is good. Nothing can change that.

[Neha]

Re: Design theories...

In Young Earth Creation it is believed that Earth is not billions of years old, but rather only 6,000 up to most 100,000 years old. This clashes with what we understand through scientific investigation of nature. So much so, a common sense approach (sorry Jac) would look to other translations of Scripture that might be compatible (that is, if one cherishes Scripture as divine revelation as many Christians do). That is, only if someone originally held to YEC.

Not correct. The young earth model of creation is the only one that bears up under scrutiny. The only reason people (even scientists) are fooled is they don't know what an old earth/solar system/universe would look like.

Traditionally, "science" is understood as encompassing all fields of rational enquiry that attempt to understand matters of truth. The physical/natural sciences are but one area of science, but that doesn't mean other areas like philosophy or theology are any less scientific in process. Sounds strange given Modernity has changed our perception of "science" to that which represents the "physical sciences"... but this important fact shouldn't be lost. Especially to those who just think a Christians will just assume "design" and think nothing more. No, there are many competing theories and always will be that force one to be pressed further, and press further.

Truth is one thing that is forever outside of science. Facts and theory are its domain. Why is this? Because facts are mutable; they change according to the situation, the observer and observed. Example, it is night. This is true, as in factual where I am, but it is not truth because it does not apply to everyone or everywhere. Depending on what you believe, truth is either a theoretical concept or a thing which is always the same, regardless of anything else. Example, YHWH (God) is good. Nothing can change that.

I was a YEC once and I can assure you it doesn't hold up, not according to science it does not.

[Kurieuo]

Re: Design theories...

In Young Earth Creation it is believed that Earth is not billions of years old, but rather only 6,000 up to most 100,000 years old. This clashes with what we understand through scientific investigation of nature. So much so, a common sense approach (sorry Jac) would look to other translations of Scripture that might be compatible (that is, if one cherishes Scripture as divine revelation as many Christians do). That is, only if someone originally held to YEC.

Not correct. The young earth model of creation is the only one that bears up under scrutiny. The only reason people (even scientists) are fooled is they don't know what an old earth/solar system/universe would look like.

Traditionally, "science" is understood as encompassing all fields of rational enquiry that attempt to understand matters of truth. The physical/natural sciences are but one area of science, but that doesn't mean other areas like philosophy or theology are any less scientific in process. Sounds strange given Modernity has changed our perception of "science" to that which represents the "physical sciences"... but this important fact shouldn't be lost. Especially to those who just think a Christians will just assume "design" and think nothing more. No, there are many competing theories and always will be that force one to be pressed further, and press further.

Truth is one thing that is forever outside of science. Facts and theory are its domain. Why is this? Because facts are mutable; they change according to the situation, the observer and observed. Example, it is night. This is true, as in factual where I am, but it is not truth because it does not apply to everyone or everywhere. Depending on what you believe, truth is either a theoretical concept or a thing which is always the same, regardless of anything else. Example, YHWH (God) is good. Nothing can change that.

With all due respect, I'm not going to debate you on a Scriptural matter ultimately unrelated to the topic being discussed here.

However, there is an inconsistency with believing re: scientific investigation of nature that, "the young earth model of creation is the only one that bears up under scrutiny" and "truth is one thing that is forever outside of science."

If you do wish to debate this, there are many Christians on this board who disagree with YEC and who'd be willing to discuss this matter. Please open a thread in the Creation forum though.

[PerciFlage]

It seems I may have misunderstood you, but nonetheless I think it very important to remember that "evolution" and "design" are very logically compatible.

They are not necessarily contradictory unless one assumes Philosophical Naturalism or a particular view of Creation such as YEC and Day-Age. Theistic Evolution sustains both elements -- "evolution" and "design" in a philosophically neutral manner.

I think what Morny is driving at is that most design hypotheses are incompatible with methodological naturalism. That isn't to say that they aren't correct or that they are all incompatible with evolution, just that they can't be answered with the tools of science.

To give some examples, these are all versions of design hypotheses that I have encountered at some time or another:

• God created a universe with all of the conditions to allow for evolution, and had no intervention after that time
• God directly intervened with and guided the course of evolution
• God created species ex nihilo in one or more creation events

To someone who doesn't hold to the assumptions of philosophical naturalism, any one of those hypotheses could be true. Couched as they typically are, however, a methodological naturalist cannot satisfactorily rule out design, because the underlying mechanism of the design has either not been stated, or has explicitly been stated as being something acting outside of the laws of the universe.

I'm not aware of any design hypotheses which state all of the mechanisms used by the purported designer in a way that can be answered through science (e.g. a theistic evolutionist might say that evolution is one mechanism used by god to create species without stating the mechanism through which god intervenes with evolution), which is why design tends to be incompatible with methodological naturalism.

Disciplines such as ID approach the problem from the other side. "Using the tools of methodological naturalism, can we demonstrate that there are some things which absolutely could not have formed through natural processes and - even without knowing anything about the specifics - infer that there are some supernatural mechanisms at work and thereby negate philosophical naturalism?"

[Morny]

...

Yes, what PerciFlage just said!

.

[Kurieuo]

Question: Can Crime Scene Investigation (CSI) be performed purely using Methodological Naturalism to determine what actually happened? Why or why not?

[Thadeyus]

Question: Can Crime Scene Investigation (CSI) be performed purely using Methodological Naturalism to determine what actually happened? Why or why not?

From a quick Google search to refresh m'self of the meaning of 'Methodological Naturalism' I say,

"Sure, of course they can and probably do."

Then again, could not one say the same for any discipline of inquiry?

Much cheers to all.