Evidence for God from Science

Now here is supposedly one of the most convincing pieces of evidence for Darwinian Evolution, it doesn't get much better then this.

Here is the more relevant part:

Vestigial eyes, for example, are clear evidence that these cave salamanders must have had ancestors who were different from them—had eyes, in this case. That is evolution. Why on earth would God create a salamander with vestiges of eyes? If he wanted to create blind salamanders, why not just create blind salamanders? Why give them dummy eyes that don't work and that look as though they were inherited from sighted ancestors? Maybe your point is a little different from this, in which case I don't think I have seen it written down before.

Here is a response from the Discovery Institute by Casey Luskin.

Ignoring the fact that Hitchens and Dawkins misconstrue ID in theological terms, the problem with the argument is that ID fully accepts that varying degrees of Darwinian evolution can take place, and in fact ID proponents regularly point out that evolution is quite good at effecting loss-of-function. While random mutations usually fail miserably at creating new complex biological functions, they are in fact quite good at messing up complex biological functions. When natural selection occasionally prefers the "messed up" state, it's quite capable of preserving it. But the neo-Darwinian mechanism is not good at producing new complex functions. As I wrote earlier this year regarding species that live in caves:

[E]xamples of loss-of-function in organisms may be best explained by natural processes of random mutation and natural selection. In this regard, features like functionless eyes on blind cave fish are probably best explained by Darwinian evolution. This poses no challenge to the validity of intelligent design in other cases. ID is far more interested in explaining the GAIN of biological function rather than loss of function.

Hitchens, Dawkins and Carroll can have all the evidence they want that the neo-Darwinian mechanism can mess things up, turn genes off, and cause "loss-of-function." No one on any side of this debate doubts that random mutations are quite good at destroying complex features. Us folks on the ID side suspect that random mutation and natural selection aren't good at doing very much more than that. And the constant citations by Darwinists of "loss of function" examples as alleged refutations of ID only strengthens our argument.

Now, this is what I meant when I said the following on the "Evolution explains something yet again" thread:

its a lot harder to upgrade then it is to downgrade
its a lot easier to modify something for better or worse when the initial design is there
its a lot easier to screw up something when modifying then it is to leave it alone
its a lot harder to find a better working solution to a problem then one that already works
sometimes there is only one solution to a problem

Now you can see the correlation. What we have again, is claims of how Darwinian Evolution is so powerless to create anything by yours truly, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens.

so lots of micro-evolution doesn't equal macroevolution? I'm well aware of the "change within a kind is allowed" argument and this seems to be one of them. But my first sentence still stands... where does micro end?

Himantolophus wrote:so lots of micro-evolution doesn't equal macroevolution? I'm well aware of the "change within a kind is allowed" argument and this seems to be one of them. But my first sentence still stands... where does micro end?

Hi Himatolopus, I don't think this has any relevance to the OP.

Himantolophus wrote:so lots of micro-evolution doesn't equal macroevolution? I'm well aware of the "change within a kind is allowed" argument and this seems to be one of them. But my first sentence still stands... where does micro end?

Where does micro end?

Nano???

Sorry - I could not resist!
-
-
-

Let's try again then...

So the loss of eyes is explainable by Darwinian evolution and IDer's agree since it is an example of a loss of function and supposedly Darwinian evolution is good at messing up complex structures. I want to know how this does anything for either side. I'll have to remember that ID accepts microevolution AND Darwinian in reverse. At this rate, it won't be long until they accept all evolution.

So the loss of eyes is explainable by Darwinian evolution and IDer's agree since it is an example of a loss of function. I want to know how this does anything for either side? I guess ID wants to define exactly what type of evolution is likes and what it doesn't.

The point is the article attempts to explain away any design/designer by pointing to an example of Salamanders with no eyes. This loss of function is exactly what ID predicts, and is the only thing ID predicts Darwinian Evolution is capable of, to reduce CSI, not induce it.

Yes, Dawkins and Hitchens believe this is devastating to creationism and ID as well. A loss of function as evidence for Darwinian Evolution is anything but evidence for it.

Your absolutely right, this has no impact to either side. But another more interesting thing should be recognized that this is exactly what Darwinian Evolution has become, an attack against design by presenting so-called "flaws" in design. After realizing design is so apparent and extravagant in nature, they are simply left with questioning the integrity of the designer.

...instead of doing what they're supposed to be, which is to present the mechanisms for how Darwinian Evolution did the designing proactively.

I'll have to remember that ID accepts microevolution AND Darwinian in reverse. At this rate, it won't be long until they accept all evolution.

Microevolution does not create anything either, its a reactive process and if you can provide me one example of a reactive process that creates complex specifed information processing systems in 3-d form then you might have point. Microevolution IS a part of both the front and back process, (ie: forward, neutral and reverse). A loss of functionality is micro-evolution. Creating is not synonymous with modification, before any modification is done to x design, x design must already exist. Modifications are completely within the scope of ID, but ID also recognizes this not as a proactive process which has any primary role in creating entirely new species. And no, ID will unlikely (and more likely never) accept the long-hauled chance and luck happy creator Darwinian Evolution.

Sorry about my edit in the middle of your post...

The point is the article attempts to explain away any design/designer by pointing to an example of Salamanders with no eyes. This loss of function is exactly what ID predicts, and is the only thing ID predicts Darwinian Evolution is capable of, to reduce CSI, not induce it.

the loss of eye function in a cave salamander is ALSO what evolutionary theory predicts so both sides here come to an impasse.

I don't really buy that the loss of eyesight in any animal is considered "degenerated". Maybe the eyes themselves are degenerate, but the organism itself is just as likely more derived, as in the degenerate eyes are apomorphic. This is plainly obvious in deepwater fishes and even invertebrates that trace their ancestry to shallow water relatives. They later lost their eyesight as evolutionary processes (mutation and selection) acted strongly against eyes in the pitch dark. A nod to the randomness of this process is the fact that many families of deepsea organism retain eyesight even in abyssal depths (many of these species are not vertical migrators or bioluminescent either) Which brings us to this:

But another more interesting thing should be recognized that this is exactly what Darwinian Evolution has become, an attack against design by presenting so-called "flaws" in design. After realizing design is so apparent and extravagant in nature, they are simply left with questioning the integrity of the designer.

I still consider these flaws as evidence against design. Why have an organism invest energy in, or reduce it's fitness, with a useless feature if it could have been designed better. Why do the above fish with eyes need eyes?

ALSO, if it wasn't for ID and creationists, evolutionary biologists would be able to fully focus their attention on finding additional evidence for DE. The ID movement "calls them out" and they have to defend themselves. i hardly see the Evo's doing the attacking

Microevolution does not create anything either, its a reactive process and if you can provide me one example of a reactive process that creates complex specifed information processing systems in 3-d form then you might have point. Microevolution IS a part of both the front and back process, (ie: forward, neutral and reverse). A loss of functionality is micro-evolution. Creating is not synonymous with modification, before any modification is done to x design, x design must already exist. Modifications are completely within the scope of ID, but ID also recognizes this not as a proactive process which has any primary role in creating entirely new species. And no, ID will unlikely (and more likely never) accept the long-hauled chance and luck happy creator Darwinian Evolution.

So, do you believe that each species is created special? What is the extent to which a species can be modified? The problem with this view is that the definition of species is so vague that you cannot define what is a species, subspecies, form, race, or population in many cases. So what is the result of evolution and what is "created"? When does God decide to create a new species? What are the predictions of ID?

I also don't buy the whole "evolution is degeneration" idea. I don't see degeneration mentioned in any genetic studies.

himantoluphus wrote: I still consider these flaws as evidence against design. Why have an organism invest energy in, or reduce it's fitness, with a useless feature if it could have been designed better. Why do the above fish with eyes need eyes?

DO we really suppose we can toss this question to God and call into question HIs wisdom? I just dont' like the theology that seems to be behind this statement.

Again, scientists for a long while assumed junk DNA was just that, with no function (and their assumption blocked the investigation into some of the functions we know about now). They also assumed the appendix was completely non-functioning.

Secondly, and I think this has a lot to do with some baggage from previous decades of debates, who's to say that God can't, in HIs wisdom, create a design that includes blind eyes? Why can't He make non-coding DNA?

And I don't know why it would be evidence against design
If the process reflects a work in progress, why criticize a process against design when this very process MIGHT just be reducing the structure in accordance to its fitness? COme on, the very process reduces these structures if that is in accordance to its fitness. So you can't really be critical of a process that IS or is in the process of reducing the investment of energy. If it is reducing their fitness, well, they would selectively die, thus fitting the structure to the environment.

himantoluphus wrote: ALSO, if it wasn't for ID and creationists, evolutionary biologists would be able to fully focus their attention on finding additional evidence for DE. The ID movement "calls them out" and they have to defend themselves. i hardly see the Evo's doing the attacking

Oh, come on.....they can handle it! Let me cry a river here for them. Debate is only fair. There is a vocal proportion of scientists who use the *mechanism* of evolution to gird their philosophy of naturalism and atheism. They tread into waters their own science cannot support. Fair is fair. THey use their science of the observable to support their belief about the supernatural. And they have been guilty of assuming things intheir own bias. Scientists are not perfect.

I don't really buy that the loss of eyesight in any animal is considered "degenerated". Maybe the eyes themselves are degenerate, but the organism itself is just as likely more derived, as in the degenerate eyes are apomorphic. This is plainly obvious in deepwater fishes and even invertebrates that trace their ancestry to shallow water relatives. They later lost their eyesight as evolutionary processes (mutation and selection) acted strongly against eyes in the pitch dark.

You forgot one thing, that the suns ultraviolet light rays destroy eye sight by penetrating and damaging the lens, cornea and retina. Try staring at the sun for a couple of months at a frequency of about five minutes a day and you'll see what I mean(I haven't tested this, just look at the statistics). Thus, adding this to your logic of the Darwinian evolutionary process, neither pitch dark nor light can really trigger eye sight (and thus has a tendency to lack any systematic process to creating eyes) since both are negating factors anyway, rendering them degenerate and leaving the question of what does generate besides these obvious speculations and assumptions.

As a side note, Scientists are working on something called the Bionic eye to replace damaged retina cells, this is a small microchip that is implanted to correct the persons central vision. Another is to implant an actual camera which will interface its circuitry (the camera acting as the artificial eye) with the brains circuitry (the optic nerve channel which connects to the brain). If you know how the eye works, then you know that the signal has to be inverted when the brain processes the image. For example, the eye takes in an image upside down and then the brain processes that image and changes it state by flipping it right side up again.

The eye is a signaling system which gives input to which the brain further processes and creates the final mental image (output). Without the brain , eyes would be useless complex structures, thus eyes are part of vastly larger and more complex system. I would see it much easier for an eye to evolve backwards and not forwards given its modularity and dependencies. Darwinian Evolutionary theory which predicts both degenerative and generative functions doesn't mean it happens both ways, you have to have concrete evidence it happens both ways in accord with the same process that the Salamander lost its eyes.

I still consider these flaws as evidence against design. Why have an organism invest energy in, or reduce it's fitness, with a useless feature if it could have been designed better. Why do the above fish with eyes need eyes?

Why have the fish designed better at all? Is this just a matter of your opinion of what design should and should not be? I think it is. The fish above here with eyes don't need eyes at all. If there is some sort of need involved, then you are stepping into the zone of purposeful causation. In Darwinian Evolution, there is no need for anything, it simply happens. In fact, many Evolutionists believe that if evolution were stepped back in time and the dice would begin rolling again, the results would quite different.

ALSO, if it wasn't for ID and creationists, evolutionary biologists would be able to fully focus their attention on finding additional evidence for DE. The ID movement "calls them out" and they have to defend themselves. i hardly see the Evo's doing the attacking

They continue too, in fact I think they should be thankful they are corrected time and time again. Tax dollars are going into evolutionary research, unlike Intelligent Design. You should go up to the Discovery Institute office yourself and see just how powerful they really are in comparison. Intelligent Design brings up a lot of valid questions especially about topics related to information theory. Evolutionary Biologists only believe they are being attacked because they have a hard time trying to answer points such as these: provide me one example of a reactive process that creates complex specified information processing systems in three dimensional form

So, do you believe that each species is created special? What is the extent to which a species can be modified? The problem with this view is that the definition of species is so vague that you cannot define what is a species, subspecies, form, race, or population in many cases. So what is the result of evolution and what is "created"? When does God decide to create a new species? What are the predictions of ID?

For some reason, I get the sense that you think ID is about God intervening during the evolutionary process.(or I'm not really understanding what your saying) God could have done that, but God could have set it up from the beginning, I have stated this before, I don't think we will ever be able to fully understand how God did it.

Intelligent Design is about design detection, following what we know about human designs we find that in the universe, mind has the only capacity to create these types of systems. Thus, it is valid hypothesis to state that biological systems which share vast similarities to what humans design, would be part of a very similar process. I think one of the first questions in ID was: where does information come from? A lot of interesting things follow this question, such as predictions that are completely out of line with the chance and luck happy theory of Darwinian evolution.



Himantoluphus, its quite apparent (judging by your anti-design comments) that you have adopted the fully-fledged neo-Darwinian view as David Blacklock has. I am really interested how you tie God and your other belief system together. Perhaps you could visit Zoegirls thread as she is contemplating the very same issue, and for good reasons which she is (I bet) perfectly aware of. You should know, that I respect everyone's views here. Many members here (if not most at this point in time) support Darwinian Evolution, they call themselves theistic evolutionists. I myself support a OEC model, I have my ways to interleave my faith with this model, but that does not mean that this model has any impact on my faith, so I'm assuming this is very similar to the way theistic evolutionists cooperate theirs.


After reading this question by Himantoluphus: So, do you believe that each species is created special?,it made me think about the following:

The Bible makes it clear that God created us (ie: man) in his image, whatever that means, there is much we can deduct from that one verse. It may mean we are distinct from the rest of the animal kingdom, this is true in many ways such as when we talk about intelligence. But, it may also mean we are distinct from His creation process.
Thus, if God created man in his image, then perhaps "the god of chance" would only be applicable to anything but man. This is speculative, but I want to hear peoples opinions on this, especially those who have adopted a purely evolutionary viewpoint.

Oh, come on.....they can handle it! Let me cry a river here for them. Debate is only fair. There is a vocal proportion of scientists who use the *mechanism* of evolution to gird their philosophy of naturalism and atheism. They tread into waters their own science cannot support. Fair is fair. THey use their science of the observable to support their belief about the supernatural. And they have been guilty of assuming things intheir own bias. Scientists are not perfect.

Yes, Zoegirl is right. There is some level of controversy in every single field of study. Unfortunately, OOL and its subsequent evolution is vastly more complex since we don't have a time travel machine. Evolutionary Biologists are really brave individuals for doing what they're doing, simply because controversy is expected at a much greater degree. On top of that, they are important questions, questions that aren't so easily answered, and answers that are not so easily accepted.

Thus, adding this to your logic of the Darwinian evolutionary process, neither pitch dark nor light can really trigger eye sight (and thus has a tendency to lack any systematic process to creating eyes) since both are negating factors anyway, rendering them degenerate and leaving the question of what does generate besides these obvious speculations and assumptions.

Well, the staring at the Sun example isn't like evolution and you know that and I know that too. The organism doesn't develop degenerate eyes in response to the stimulus, (Lamarckian), but it is born with a degenerate eye and selection acts on it. It is able to survive and reproduce and more of these specimens appear over time. Since there are eyed and eyeless fishes in the deepsea, the selection may be more random than actually favoring eyed vs. eyeless. That may be why we have both today. The energetics of having functioning eyes may not be such a impairment?

Why have the fish designed better at all? Is this just a matter of your opinion of what design should and should not be? I think it is. The fish above here with eyes don't need eyes at all. If there is some sort of need involved, then you are stepping into the zone of purposeful causation. In Darwinian Evolution, there is no need for anything, it simply happens. In fact, many Evolutionists believe that if evolution were stepped back in time and the dice would begin rolling again, the results would quite different.

true, but evolution is not completely random. It is driven directionally by natural selection. We both know that the fish cannot "decide" to lose it's eyes.

They continue too, in fact I think they should be thankful they are corrected time and time again. Tax dollars are going into evolutionary research, unlike Intelligent Design. You should go up to the Discovery Institute office yourself and see just how powerful they really are in comparison. Intelligent Design brings up a lot of valid questions especially about topics related to information theory. Evolutionary Biologists only believe they are being attacked because they have a hard time trying to answer points such as these: provide me one example of a reactive process that creates complex specified information processing systems in three dimensional form

For some reason, I get the sense that you think ID is about God intervening during the evolutionary process.(or I'm not really understanding what your saying) God could have done that, but God could have set it up from the beginning, I have stated this before, I don't think we will ever be able to fully understand how God did it.

Intelligent Design is about design detection, following what we know about human designs we find that in the universe, mind has the only capacity to create these types of systems. Thus, it is valid hypothesis to state that biological systems which share vast similarities to what humans design, would be part of a very similar process. I think one of the first questions in ID was: where does information come from? A lot of interesting things follow this question, such as predictions that are completely out of line with the chance and luck happy theory of Darwinian evolution.

Himantoluphus, its quite apparent (judging by your anti-design comments) that you have adopted the fully-fledged neo-Darwinian view as David Blacklock has. I am really interested how you tie God and your other belief system together. Perhaps you could visit Zoegirls thread as she is contemplating the very same issue, and for good reasons which she is (I bet) perfectly aware of. You should know, that I respect everyone's views here. Many members here (if not most at this point in time) support Darwinian Evolution, they call themselves theistic evolutionists. I myself support a OEC model, I have my ways to interleave my faith with this model, but that does not mean that this model has any impact on my faith, so I'm assuming this is very similar to the way theistic evolutionists cooperate theirs.

After reading this question by Himantoluphus: So, do you believe that each species is created special?,it made me think about the following:

let me clear this up. I'm not here to argue against ID or even OEC. My beef it totally with YEC. I am pro-evolution, but not necessarily anti-design, as you seem to blieve. I am merely defending evolutionary theory as many of these ID claims on evolution are either false or unproven.
I cannot refure the possibility that God created a design process over the long period of Earth's existence. I can't prove that He created things as they appear in the fossil record. I can't prove that he didn't create the first cell. The thing is, no one can prove if random evolution or Intelligent Design is true.

Discovery Institute and evolutionary biologists are working in their own fields trying to figure things out. I wish them both luck. But it is clear that creatures have changed over time and evolutionary theory explains it the best. That is where I stand right now. I am a theistic evolutionist by the way, as in I beleive God created the Universe in the beginning and He also created evolution as his "creative process".

So, I really do not wish to debate over something that I have no beef with.

Himatolophus, ' a question for you

In describing your idea of theistic evolution, would you say that God is in control of the results. In other words, DId He look down upon us in surprise? or knowing that His plan cam to fruition. It think this is where a lot of discrepancy comes with the ideas of theistic evolution.

This is my biggest concern with the phrase theistic evolution with regards to its theological implications. Clearly scripture describes a God who is deliberate and sovereign. I have no problem with evolution being the mechanism as long as we still seek to understand God's role in scripture. How do you see God's invovlement?

While I find theistic evolution to make sense for the Universe and all life on Earth, since God had to put it there in the beginning and lay the "ground rules", I am unsure on how our current manifestation of human (H. sapiens) became the species "created in God's image". I don't know how complex our ancestral forms were as in the belief in "Gods" but they probably had some primitive form of religion (as in worshipping the things in nature they couldn't explain).

It is clear from the fossil evidence that there is a clear lineage from Australopithacus to Homo sapiens that outlines the evolution of humans. The problem comes with determining what "human" species is referred to in the Bible. Most people say our species is the only "special" one, but who's to say that H. habilis, H. erectus, or Neanderthals didn't have a belief in a God or gods.

I also don't see God looking at anything in surprise. Even if the evolutionary process is naturalistic and God does not tinker at all, an everpowerful and all knowing God possibly can see the endpoint of this evolution. Which begs the question: did he create naturalistic evolution with a start and an endpoint? Or did he create the framework from which naturalistic processes can build on? Interesting... but does this border on OEC? haha

Ok,. thanks, I am certainly in agreement that God is not surprised

I get worried when the idea is promoted that Her just started it and let it go....