Evolutionary Explanations: Substance, Seasoning, or Storytelling?

CEH ^ | April 7, 2009

[GodGunsGuts]

Evolutionary Explanations: Substance, Seasoning, or Storytelling?

April 7, 2009 — A scientific theory should explain why certain phenomena in nature are the way they are.  This layman’s view, though simplistic, expects that a theory should also predict new phenomena before they are observed.  In many science reports on evolution, however, one finds evolutionary theory tacked on as an explanation after the fact, when the theory had virtually nothing to do with the research or the conclusions (for examples a year ago, see 04/04/2008).  The evolutionary interpretation also begs the question that it is the only explanation adequate to explain the phenomena under observation.  Other research projects that are motivated by evolutionary theory, and claim success of the theory, leave sizable loopholes for critics.

1. Dog lab:  The dog has been man’s best friend for years, but is it because of evolution?  MSNBC News surprised readers with the title “Dogs (not chimps) most like humans.” 

   Lest one conclude that we evolved from dogs, or they from us, the article launched into a discussion of dog-human co-evolution.  “Now, perhaps for the first time, students of animal behavior, psychology, neuroscience, anthropology, philosophy and veterinary medicine will unite to provide deeper insights into the evolution of dogs and the evolution of humans,” said Marc Hauser of Harvard.  If you thought you were training your dog with intelligent design, maybe Darwin was at work on both of you.

2. Spliceosome marvels:  The spliceosome, one of the most sophisticated molecular machines of all, was unveiled in unprecedented detail recently by scientists at Brandeis University and Cambridge.  This machine clips RNA transcripts and reassembles them before they get translated into proteins.  It’s an exquisite process that must be performed thousands of times without error, lest serious disorders develop.  Science Daily reported on the detailed look at this machine, then quoted a researcher who said this about it: “In human cells one gene can be made into a variety of proteins, so if the process just goes slightly wrong, the genetic alteration can lead to incredible disaster; yet on the other hand, this incredible complexity has led to our amazing evolutionary progress,” said Pomeranz Krummel [Brandeis U]. 

   “....The fundamental difference between us and the earthworm is that our cells have evolved to utilize this process of RNA splicing to generate a whole other dimension to the transmission of genetic information.”

3. Insect flight:  Last month, Science Daily told about a researcher at U of Arkansas who searched for the evolution of insect flight.  He and his coworkers dropped wingless bristletails, thought to be ancestors of winged insects, from treetops and watched them control their descent with their tails.  “The existence of aerial control ability in a wingless insect and its habitat in trees is consistent with the hypothesis of a terrestrial origin for winged flight in insects,” he said – but he did not connect the tail structure with the wings and muscles of flying insects.  Nor did he consider the possibility that bristletails are secondarily flightless.

4. Sponge ancestor not:  You can breathe a sigh of relief.  The sponge is not your ancestor.  Science Daily said that an international team has put sponges on a separate evolutionary branch all their own: “scientists report that all sponges descended from a unique sponge ancestor, who in turn was not the ancestor of all other animals.”  To tell this story, they had to stretch credibility: “Since the comb jellies already have nerve and muscle cells, this would suggest that these features developed several times independently in animal history, or that they were lost in sponges and placozoans.”  The article says that molecular and morphological studies contradict each other’s evolutionary inferences and the work remains “controversial.”
5. Game theory:  Explaining the evolution of cooperation by game theory is still a hot topic.  PhysOrg claimed that “Cooperative behavior meshes with evolutionary theory” based on work by two MIT students.  To make this work, it seems the evolutionists need to ascribe free will to the members of a population – even to yeast cells:

   The same rules apply to the cheating and cooperating yeast: Like the driver who grudgingly gets out and shovels so that both she and her fellow motorist – snug inside his car – may continue on their journeys, the yeast who cooperate do so because there is a slight benefit for themselves.  However, when most of the yeast are cooperating, it becomes advantageous for some individuals to cheat, and vice versa, which allows co-existence between cheaters and cooperators to arise.

What would you rather have: scientists concerned about curing cancer and building green technology, or lazy guys dropping bugs out of treetops so that they can tell stories about how technology invented itself?  Re-read the principles in the 04/04/2008 commentary.  The Darwinian storytellers have still not repented.

[GodGunsGuts]

Ping!

[DevNet]

For every one person you bring to Christ you drive away at least 5.

[GodGunsGuts]

That's not bad! Every 5th person converted to Christ. Thanks for the encouragement :o)

[tacticalogic]

A scientific theory should explain why certain phenomena in nature are the way they are.

That's going to put the ID/creation scientist in the position of having to discern God's motives.

[DevNet]

So you are happy that you drive people away from Christ. That isn’t something I would expect a Christian to say - how do you justify it?

[GodGunsGuts]

We have the advantage of having God’s Word to inform us of the motives He has chosen to reveal. Not only that, he tells us what and when he created, which is why creation origins science is so vastly superior to Evos blindly grasping for random straws in the dark.

[GodGunsGuts]

Jesus Christ says that His message is offensive to the lost. Wide is the gate that leads to destruction, and narrow is the path that leads to eternal life.

[BillT]

and you come up with this ratio based on science or professional gut feel based on your wrong assumptions.

[tacticalogic]

We have the advantage of having God’s Word to inform us of the motives He has chosen to reveal. Not only that, he tells us what and when he created, which is why creation origins science is so vastly superior to Evos blindly grasping for random straws in the dark.

That's going to submit the Bible as theory. Are you sure you want to do that?

[DevNet]

By talking to people - that is how I came up with it.

[DevNet]

Judging from your posts and your treatment of others - perhaps you should reread the message of Jesus Christ?

[GodGunsGuts]

God does not formulate theories. He knows the beginning from the end. He is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. Men are forced to formulate theories.

[GodGunsGuts]

I have. That’s how I know the message of Jesus Christ is offensive to the lost.

[DevNet]

I don’t think so - I know some who have found God and they are much nicer and respectful to those with whom they disagree. The operate on the theory that by being a good example they may gain converts.

It appears to work.

[GodGunsGuts]

How many have you won to Christ, DevNet?

[Caesar Soze]

What would you rather have: scientists concerned about curing cancer and building green technology, or lazy guys dropping bugs out of treetops so that they can tell stories about how technology invented itself?

Well, if the scientist is a tropical arthropod entomologist, I want him tossing bugs out of trees. I don't think he'd be very useful in cancer research or greengineering.

[chuckles]

Confronting people with their disbelief and insisting they repent was exactly what the rest of the Bible says. Insisting that you are a Christian but calling God’s Word to His people a lie isn’t what Jesus was looking for. When Jesus preached in the synagogue, he preached Genesis, The Flood, Sodom’s destruction, ect. I can’t find in the Scripture where He said all that stuff in the Bible was a myth and we actually came from apes or pond scum or whatever. Your theory would have Jesus preaching lies in church. If Jesus lied, He wasn’t perfect and couldn’t be my substitute for sin on the cross. All Christianity crumbles like a house of cards. You can choose man or choose God, you cannot serve to masters.

[Caesar Soze]

Jesus Christ says that His message is offensive to the lost.

It does not follow that anything offensive is the message of Jesus Christ.

[Paradox]

For every one person you bring to Christ you drive away at least 5.

That's not bad! Every 5th person converted to Christ. Thanks for the encouragement :o)

So, not only do you not understand evolution, you don't understand math either.