Evidence for Design?

[grannymh]

Al

Great news…I found your post with the Feser and Biologos links.

I was able to access the paper by Sherry et al. I respect scientists who are upfront about their assumptions, estimates, expectations, and result suggestions as Sherry is. For example “We assume a generation time of 20 years throughout.” That is an o.k. assumption.

Because two founders are unique, one has to consider if a generation time of 20 years would apply to them. We need to be aware that a fixed generation time does not account for overlapping generations which would have happened in the time of Adam. Recall that God blessed them saying “Be fertile and multiply”. (Genesis 1: 28). In addition, a generation time of 16 years would be more likely.

As for genetic diversity, it begins with Adam’s children and expands with each succeeding generation. Does DNA produce a clone of one parent or the other? Of course not. Nor is the pattern or process of inheriting genes always the same between siblings. (Refer to Queen Victoria’s descendents.) If there is anything “chance” in nature, it is heredity.

Does looking at Adam’s unique situation make the conclusions of Sherry’s research wrong? Good grief, no.

The question which should be asked is – Can the valid evidence of the Ya5 Alu subfamily exclude the possibility of Adam? What is it about the Ya5 data that can conclusively say that there is not one spot on the entire earth during millions of years going backwards where one human couple could live and procreate? Especially when this couple was in friendship with God, the Creator. (according to Catholicism)

Readers of the Sherry paper could properly say that Adam and Eve were improbable, but they cannot properly say that Adam and Eve were impossible. The possibility of two sole founders of the human species remains. The possibility is all that is needed since Divine Revelation affirms monogenism.

Blessings,
granny

Divine Revelation trumps.

 

[grannymh]

I think it does. The point I am making is the data has to be extrapolated to rule out Adam and Eve. In addition, the amount of diversity in the original paper did not take into account epigenetic effects.

One has to first concentrate on the evidence, the data itself.
One has to ask serious questions about the evidence, the data itself.
One has to differentiate between the author’s actual conclusion and the interpretations either in the paper or outside the paper.

One has to ask – What “inferences” can validly come from the evidence?
Then, one can ask – Does the evidence warrant an extrapolation to an universal exclusion?

After a lot of hard work, then one can say with confidence that the possibility of Adam and Eve exists.

One can approach Adam and Eve from a positive position instead of dealing with the negative opposition.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Wow! I leave for a few days and this thread is humungously long!

And I’ve missed most of it but I’ll read it and try to understand. It’s nice to see a thread on such a volatile topic remain open for such a long time.

 

[reggieM]

Traditional design arguments are along the lines that the world is complex, the complexity comes from an underlying perfect order, the order implies a perfect purpose, and a perfect purpose implies a perfect designer, God. QED.

Well, it’s good that you accept that much.

Complexity is something we can observe. Scientifically, certain kinds of complexity can be distinguished from things with less complexity. We infer an underlying order based on what we observe in nature. Also, when you add the term “perfect” to this argument it’s really a different kind of argument. It’s St. Thomas Aquinas’ 4th proof – argument from degrees of perfection.

 

[buffalo]

Wow! I leave for a few days and this thread is humungously long!

And I’ve missed most of it but I’ll read it and try to understand. It’s nice to see a thread on such a volatile topic remain open for such a long time.

Respect and good will among the participants is essential.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Thanks for the quotes, I like them while maybe not totally agreeing.

We have different understandings of ID, which to me has a purely US origin in trying to get round your constitution to teach creationism as if it were science. After several years ID has still not managed to get beyond the stage of mere speculation, so on those grounds alone it couldn’t be taught in high school (as it would invite the teaching of every other speculation ever made), but there are more basic reasons for attacking ID, and if you’ve never seen it, reading the transcript of Tammy Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District is entertaining.

Whereas the traditional design arguments you quoted argue for the existence of God, in the trial Michael Behe stated that for him ID doesn’t:

Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether intelligent design requires the action of a supernatural creator?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And what is that opinion?
A. No, it doesn’t.

So, for its most famous proponent, ID is secular and has nothing to do with God. Judge Jones, in his summing up, agreed:

With ID, proponents assert that they refuse to propose hypotheses on the designer’s identity, do not propose a mechanism, and the designer, he/she/it/they, has never been seen. … In addition, Professor Behe agreed that for the design of human artifacts, we know the designer and its attributes and we have a baseline for human design that does not exist for design of biological systems. Professor Behe’s only response to these seemingly insurmountable points of disanalogy was that the inference still works in science fiction movies .

Judge Jones also found that ID is not science:

*First, defense expert Professor Fuller agreed that ID aspires to ‘change the ground rules’ of science and lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology . Moreover, defense expert Professor Minnich acknowledged that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened to allow consideration of supernatural forces.

…] What is more, defense experts concede that ID is not a theory as that term is defined by the NAS [National Academy of Sciences] and admit that ID is at best ‘fringe science’ which has achieved no acceptance in the scientific community.*

Did Judge Jones laugh at the time you inserted a or did you add those as your own reactions to his comments? I think I would have added some more.

I agree that ID is not science. And as it is not science it should not be taught in any science class. Neither should creationism. I’m not saying they should not be taught (I think they should but be first presented as undergraduate college courses) but they have as much place in a science classroom as in a poetry or calculus class.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Readers of the Sherry paper could properly say that Adam and Eve were improbable, but they cannot properly say that Adam and Eve were impossible. The possibility of two sole founders of the human species remains.

But the point is that there are three independent lines of evidence, of which the Sherry paper studies only one. And then the probability that it is wrong shrinks dramatically to the point of non-existence.

As the Biologos link says:

Here’s the real point of this. When you have one way of doing a calculation and you get a certain answer, perhaps you are justified in being a little skeptical. Perhaps you made a mathematical mistake, or maybe you made a faulty assumption. However, when you do your calculation using two totally different approaches, using methods with completely different assumptions, and each method gives you the same answer, you become convinced it is correct. Three, of course is just icing on the cake.

The possibility is all that is needed since Divine Revelation affirms monogenism.

Blessings,
granny

Divine Revelation trumps.

Divine Revelation affirms monogenism, but nowhere in the Bible or Catholic teaching it is said that Divine Revelation affirms genetic monogenism. Again, theological monogenism is easily an option even under biological (genetic) polygenism, given the metaphysics of human nature.

 

[LittleSoldier]

One has to first concentrate on the evidence, the data itself.
One has to ask serious questions about the evidence, the data itself.
One has to differentiate between the author’s actual conclusion and the interpretations either in the paper or outside the paper.

One has to ask – What “inferences” can validly come from the evidence?
Then, one can ask – Does the evidence warrant an extrapolation to an universal exclusion?

After a lot of hard work, then one can say with confidence that the possibility of Adam and Eve exists.

One can approach Adam and Eve from a positive position instead of dealing with the negative opposition.

YES!!! And this is how scientific method is supposed to work, although with a few additions:

One must first want to study something. A small aspect of that “something” should be picked to study and any existing research should be found and examined (methodology, statistics, conclusions, and whether any corroborating research has been conducted). When previous research is studied, the author’s (or authors’) methods and conclusions should be noted and any improvements (which there always appear to be) should be taken care of in new research. The appropriate null hypothesis should be used and everything should be done to ensure randomization. An appropriate level of significance should be chosen and the new study should be very carefully conducted.

Were the authors’ conclusions from their obtained data appropriate? Could there be other conclusions which would fit the observed results?

And can the conclusions be extrapolated to other species, including human beings (I mean, come on now - every scientist knows that male rat pups will mature and die of cancer eventually, so how can we extrapolate to female human beings from any research using male rat pups as subjects?)

It goes on and on and on; each study hopefully adding a bit of real knowledge. A bit of real knowledge is worth so much more than a ton of speculation and “cheating.”

From my own limited experience, most of the work I conducted in my original research was reading others’ research and determining if that research had been conducted and understood appropriately and this process included finding later research that had been conducted specifically because of errors in the first research (it was a very tiring process; especially because I had no computer to help).

Once enough hard work has been done and most of the kinks ironed out we can turn our hypotheses into a theory: Adam and Eve existed as real human beings and are the ancestors of all other human beings.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Once enough hard work has been done and most of the kinks ironed out we can turn our hypotheses into a theory: Adam and Eve existed as real human beings and are the ancestors of all other human beings.

Yes, we agree on this! But again, this is very well possible under biological polygenism.

 

[LittleSoldier]

But the point is that there are three independent lines of evidence, of which the Sherry paper studies only one. And then the probability that it is wrong shrinks dramatically to the point of non-existence.

As the Biologos link says:

Here’s the real point of this. When you have one way of doing a calculation and you get a certain answer, perhaps you are justified in being a little skeptical. Perhaps you made a mathematical mistake, or maybe you made a faulty assumption. However, when you do your calculation using two totally different approaches, using methods with completely different assumptions, and each method gives you the same answer, you become convinced it is correct. Three, of course is just icing on the cake.

It never shrinks “to the point of non-existence.” What it does is provide evidence that it is true. There is always the possibility that any results have been obtained due to chance alone - even if the obtained results positively correlate with other results obtained using different methods.

If one of my assumptions is incorrect every time I do a calculation my answer will be wrong. And that can be true even if I use completely different assumptions. Human error is always present. You stated that achieving the same result three times is “icing on the cake” and so it appears (to me) that you are claiming that two calculations are sufficient. And that just is not so. You might well become convinced but there will always be others who will disagree.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Correct, ID the science would be bottom right. There is no union between those two sets.

Faith and correct human reasoning is the area of intersect. The weakness to finding truth is in human reasoning.

God though, put it all in the circle. ID is not God, it is a manifestation of God.

Wait - the poster stated that ID is not science. You are calling it “ID the science.” Please clarify. Are you stating that ID is science?

 

[Al_Moritz]

You stated that achieving the same result three times is “icing on the cake” and so it appears (to me) that you are claiming that two calculations are sufficient. And that just is not so. You might well become convinced but there will always be others who will disagree.

I did not say anything about “icing on the cake”, I just quoted from the article.

Please, can people here read other people’s posts carefully?

(You are not the only one misreading, but it gets really tiresome now.)

 

[LittleSoldier]

I agree. It’s an homage to Darwinism.

I question whether it is an homage to Darwinism or an accurate scientific operational term. Dignity is not in the realm of science - it is in the realm of religion and perhaps philosophy.

You raise a very interesting point. Protestantism was, to some extent, a reaction against the philosophical arguments that dominated religion at the time. It was looking for a simpler, faith-based approach. But that created a gap between science and religion. Today, some think that religious faith can provide zero information about the world in which we live. Everything is given over to scientific knowledge. Religion is considered a myth that “helps people” – it’s an illusion that keeps them happy. But science is considered “true knowledge” about life and the world.

What I’ve seen is different. I’ve seen people on CAF deny science completely and claim that the Vatican does the same. I see a fear of and loathing for science and very little attempt to learn what science actually is and how truth cannot contradict truth. I’ve actually been told that the Church does not teach what she does - the Pope lied to some scientists so they would feel good about themselves (evidently scientists have low self-esteem). I’ve seen an absolute terror of science and a clinging to religion as though it is a piece of floating debris near a sinking ship. Really. Absolute horror.

(I don’t intend a long-off topic argument here, but just curious to help understand).

Please be careful. I was recently accused of hijacking a thread and my motives were like yours. If you wish to discuss this, please start a new thread.

 

[reggieM]

I question whether it is an homage to Darwinism or an accurate scientific operational term. Dignity is not in the realm of science - it is in the realm of religion and perhaps philosophy.

Dignity is everywhere. So is philosophy, and so is God – He can even be found in science, as hard as that might be to believe.

I’ve seen people on CAF deny science completely and claim that the Vatican does the same.

Interesting. In my 6 years here on CAF I’ve never seen anyone do that. That strikes me as a wild exaggeration — and that you’re upset about something.

Please be careful. I was recently accused of hijacking a thread and my motives were like yours. If you wish to discuss this, please start a new thread.

Thanks very much for the warning. No, I don’t want to argue about it. I was only looking for Inocente’s views to understand him a little better.

 

[tonyrey]

Hallelujah, I’m glad you finally admitted it says nothing about God, although you managed to avoid stating which particular design argument you actually mean.

Please refer to the OP.

But if it’s not intended to argue for the existence of God, what on earth is the point of it?

Please refer to the OP.

 

[tonyrey]

If you wish to discuss monogenism please start another thread. I fail to see how it is related to the topic of evidence for Design…

Not when the thread is hijacked and serves as an evasion of the topic…
Are you unwilling to start another thread?

 

[grannymh]

But the point is that there are three independent lines of evidence, of which the Sherry paper studies only one. And then the probability that it is wrong shrinks dramatically to the point of non-existence.

Please tell me what you are talking about.
I did not say that Sherry’s conclusion is wrong. I did not say Sherry’s conclusion is wrong. I did not say Sherry’s conclusion is wrong.

In fact, I shifted the focus to Adam since it is Adam, not Sherry, whom I was writing about. Then I asked a specific question about the evidence of the Ya5 Alu subfamily. The evidence is not the same as a conclusion. The evidence is not the same as the conclusion. Then I concluded with a reference to the readers of the Sherry paper. Readers of the Sherry are not the same as Sherry. Or are they?
Even if they are one and the same, the paper’s author could properly say that Adam and Eve are improbable. But according to answers to questions in Posts 1428, 1384, 1386, 1377. Adam and Eve are possible.

As the Biologos link says:

Here’s the real point of this. When you have one way of doing a calculation and you get a certain answer, perhaps you are justified in being a little skeptical. Perhaps you made a mathematical mistake, or maybe you made a faulty assumption. However, when you do your calculation using two totally different approaches, using methods with completely different assumptions, and each method gives you the same answer, you become convinced it is correct. Three, of course is just icing on the cake.

Actually, Ayala tested his conclusion from a computer program starting in the present and then tested it starting in the past. That is the proper way of testing a calculation.
So tell me, what is it about a calculation which can conclusively say that there is not one spot on the entire earth during millions of years going backwards where one human couple could live and procreate?

Divine Revelation affirms monogenism, but nowhere in the Bible or Catholic teaching it is said that Divine Revelation affirms genetic monogenism. Again, theological monogenism is easily an option even under biological (genetic) polygenism, given the metaphysics of human nature.

As far as dogmatic teaching of genetic (genetics refer to the human anatomy of Adam ) monogenism (meaning one genetic human pair as founders),
one can begin with Romans 5: 12-21; St. Thomas Aquinas, De Malo 4,1; Council of Trent, Pius XII, Paul VI, and the current Catechism which affirms the previous teachings starting with Romans 5: 12-21.

Am I cranky (feminine of snarky) ?


Not really.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for truth is worthy of the adventures.

 

[tonyrey]

Please tell me what you are talking about.
I did not say that Sherry’s conclusion is wrong. I did not say Sherry’s conclusion is wrong. I did not say Sherry’s conclusion is wrong.

In fact, I shifted the focus to Adam since it is Adam, not Sherry, whom I was writing about. Then I asked a specific question about the evidence of the Ya5 Aluys subfamily. The evidence is not the same as a conclcusion. The evidence is not the same as the conclusion. Then I concluded with a reference to the readers of the Sherry paper. Readers of the Sherry are not the same as Sherry. Or are they?
Even if they are one and the same, the paper’s author could properly say that Adam and Eve are improbable. But according to answers to questions in Posts 1428, 1384, 1386, 1377. Adam and Eve are possible.

As the Biologos link says:

Actually, Ayala tested his conclusion from a computer program starting in the present and then tested it starting in the past. That is the proper way of testing a calculation.
So tell me, what is it about a calculation which can conclusively say that there is not one spot on the entire earth during millions of years going backwards where one human couple could live and procreate?

Divine Revelation affirms monogenism, but nowhere in the Bible or Catholic teaching it is said that Divine Revelation affirms genetic monogenism. Again, theological monogenism is easily an option even under biological (genetic) polygenism, given the metaphysics of human nature.

As far as dogmatic teaching of genetic (genetics refer to the human anatomy of Adam ) monogenism (meaning one genetic human pair as founders
), one can begin with Romans 5: 12-21; St. Thomas Aquinas, De Malo 4,1; Council of Trent, Pius XII, Paul VI, and the current Catechism which affirms the previous teachings starting with Romans 5: 12-21.

Am I cranky (feminine of snarky) ?


Not really.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for truth is worthy of the adventures.

In addition to digressing from the topic you are regressing into banned territory…

Please start another thread.

 

[tonyrey]

Respect and good will among the participants is essential.

And also a willingness not to introduce red herrings!

 

[tonyrey]

I still have an issue with one who supports the cosmological design argument but believes that somehow God withdrew design from biology.

There have been so many digressions I missed that point but it is one of the most amusing and significant. The whole point is that Design is a comprehensive explanation and not one that fills in gaps. If we have eyes to see there are miracles all around us and inside us…