Ken

CD, you've been asked at least twice on this thread how old you think the earth is, and you have evaded the question by saying it's irrelevant; evolution is impossible no matter how much time you give it. I'm am going to pose the question again, point blank, just as you were asked before, and I will continue to ask it until I get a direct answer. I won't ask you to tell me exactly how old you think is, but only within three orders of magnitude: Is the earth thousands, millions or billions of years old?

If you are unwilling to tell us your thoughts on this, why? Is it because you don't know the answer, or because you don't want to commit yourself to a particular position and thereby alienate yourself from young-earth creationists on the one hand or old-earth ID advocates on the other hand? If you have an opinion on the age of the earth (as surely you must), please share it with us.

If you think the earth is more than thousands of years old, would you go far to say that its antiquity is a "fact?" How much evidence would be required to pronounce one position or another a "fact?" This question is relevant to our discussion of common descent, if only for us to gain insight into what constitutes for you sufficient evidence to establish a hypothesis as fact.

Ken

Interesting list, given that the authors of at least two of these books (Michael Behe of Darwin's Black Box and Michael Denton of Evolution: A Theory in Crisis and Nature's Destiny) accept common descent (I won't even mention The Origin of Species). Michael Denton's shift from denial to acceptance of common descent would argue that there is in fact more evidence for common descent than CD wishes to acknowledge. How could such meager evidence for common descent convince the likes of anti-evolutionist Michael Denton or Michael Behe? Why does CD recommend these authors after spending so much effort to deny the very position they hold on common descent?

lpetrich

There's a creationist book called The Origin of Species Revisited.

Also, CD seems to be setting the bar of proof quality MUCH higher for evolution than for creationism -- and he ignores such alternative hypotheses as hordes of invisible elves designing living things over geological time.

Ken

CD, in the crowded field of anti-evolutionists, it appears you've managed to carve out a niche for yourself by latching on to the idea that evolutionists are motivated more by theological than scientific considerations, and it is your mission to ferret out examples to prove your point. This is your raison d'�tre, your calling for "such a time as this" (c.f. Mordecai in Esther). This is how you intend to make a name for yourself in the anti-evolutionist community, and you may convince a few evolutionists to re-evaluate their position. Your assumption is that if proponents of evolutionary theory can be caught invoking metaphysics, then that's all that really matters, showing the real reason why they accept evolution. All the other non-metaphysical evidence they present can be dismissed as a smokescreen, a front to support the metaphysically-founded basis of their beliefs. It doesn't matter how much scientific evidence they marshal; if metaphysics pops up here an there in their writings, you will mine these quotes, amassing them as proof of your central thesis.

OK, so you've discovered that a number of evolutionists do in fact bring metaphysics into their writings, perhaps mentioning theology in one out of every ten pages. But it's a stretch to see metaphysics as the most important reason for accepting evolution rather than as one of a number of considerations. If the opponents of evolutionary theory are primarily creationists who hold certain ideas about God's nature, then it's to be expected that evolutionists should address their opponents on their [metaphysical] terms, not just on scientific terms. Consider this excerpt from Answers In Genesis, where Ken Ham responds to the nascent old-earth creationism of Martin de Haan:

Now, I will give you that not all anti-evolutionists are driven by this kind of metaphysics, nor are evolutionists who respond theologically to such ideas operating strictly in the scientific realm, but it would be unfair to deny the right of evolutionists to respond to them theologically. If the prevailing idea of God in the time of Darwin was Victorian-pollyannaish, and Darwin responded to some of those concepts in his arguments for evolution, does that mean we can dismiss all his writings as unscientific? A century and a half later, you denounce that theological perspective, proudly embracing a more biblical (Old Testament) outlook along these lines: As I have previously mentioned in speaking for myself, it was scientific rather than metaphysical considerations that led me to my present position three years ago. I agree with your thesis that metaphysical arguments are unscientific, but I see these arguments as legitimate supplemental material when it comes to responding to theistic critics of evolution, invoking whatever theological ideas are current among those critics. If those theological ideas should swing from one generation to another, then evolutionists should be expected to respond to the ideas of each generation, whether those ideas come from the Bible, the Koran or current trends. If these ideas are unbiblical or are in some other way unsupportable, then the use of such ideas by evolutionists may have no merit other than to respond to the (erroneous) ideas of their contemporary theistic critics. But none of this changes that fact that the primary reasons scientists accept evolution have been, are and always will be scientific.

But I will go further. Two particular attributes of God held by nearly all theists can legitimately be brought into the debate in any generation, namely that God is omnipotent and that he is not deceptive. When Futuyma suggests that there is no reason God should have done something such and such a way (raising your metaphysical red flag and adding to your log of unscientifically motivated evolutionists), what he's really getting at is that God, being all-powerful, could have done it in such a way as not to suggest evolution had occurred, when in fact it does appear that evolution had occurred. So, if God created in a way that is compatible with or suggestive of evolution, when it was within his power to create in a manner incompatible with evolution, and we see this pattern throughout nature, then why should scientists like Futuyma be chastised for highlighting these patterns (unless he truly fails to bring any scientific evidence to bear)?

Go on amassing your quotes, and mine this whole thread to isolate metaphysical morsels, and package them up with some supporting prose to bolster your central thesis, then do your best to bring down the whole evolutionary edifice with your revolutionary findings. But scientists will not be impressed with this game. If anti-evolutionists begin joining your bandwagon en masse, and your name rises to the fore of the anti-evolutionary movement, then you can be assured that leading proponents of evolution will not hesitate to bring to light the emptiness of your thesis. I am not impressed by the thesis that evolutionists are primarily motivated by metaphysics, nor is presumably anyone on this thread. Ashby Camp tried to use your thesis in his response to Theobald's "29+ Evidences for Macro-Evolution," but Theobald effectively rebutted these arguments in his response to Camp. What's your take on that exchange?

Charles Darwin

OK, let me try to be more explicit then. For those not following closely here, the point at issue is whether evolution can sustain the failure to find any vestigial structures. Caravelair maintains that evolution would necessarily be false and we'd all have to go home if no such structures were found. And since we have found them it is a nice feather in evolution's cap. Why is claim not true?

First, we need a definition for vestigial structures. It turns out this is not so easy. You might think a structure that lacks function, or has reduced function would do. But in fact evolutionists say vestigial structures do not need to have reduced or zero function. In fact, they can have a whole new function that they have taken on; and they can be rather efficient in performing this new function. So right off the bat, if we are going to claim that vestigial structures are such a powerful prediction of evolution, it would be nice to have an unambiguous definition of these things.

Let's assume we define vestigial structures as those that suggest homology yet have reduced function. This is not as easy as it sounds, because function is often difficult to measure. The small bones in the whale are said to be vestigial and of little use; yet they may be used in the reproduction process. They may be pretty important.

But let's assume that tomorrow someone comes up with a great way to measure function. And we indeed find that the whale bones, flightless bird wings, etc., all have good function. Would evolutionists throw up there hands and say to each other, "gee, I guess we were wrong about all this; evolution must be false." No, they would not. Why? Because (as we have already discussed), the fact that "vestigial" organs need not be of reduced function has already been acknowledged by evolutionists. They have no problem with this.

Charles Darwin

I didn't know that. Can you explain how you know that complexity can arise through evolution?

If there are such good evidences then I'd believe too. Can you tell me what are the best of your evidences?

Charles Darwin

Hmm. How about this; the dinosaurs became extinct due to a meteor impact (certainly not a fact, but not a bad theory). A theory with a host of unknowns that merits being called a fact? How about this; the Norman Conquest occurred in the 11th century.

Charles Darwin

Naylor shows that vestigial structures are evidence beyond the usual homology argument? I must have missed it. Can you point me to the passage where he does that? Or reconstruct the argument?

I didn't know that. Can you give me a good example?

lpetrich

Charles Darwin:
I didn't know that. Can you explain how you know that complexity can arise through evolution?

Little invisible elves do it.

Just teasing.

The emergence of greater complexity has been a serious concern of evolutionary biologists, and there is a simple mechanism that produces at least some case of increased complexity: gene duplication and diversification. Each of the new copies will start having its own mutations, but because they are redundant, they will be less constrained. In the process, they can drift toward having a different function, though usually one similar to the original, at least initially.

Likewise, genes can be brought together by various sorts of gene transfer:

Cell fusion in the sexual cycle
Transfer of genes to and from viruses
Direct injection of genes from one organism to another
Endosymbiosis
Scavenging of dead organisms' released genetic material

"Charles Darwin" appears to be totally ignorant of the evolutionary-biology literature, aside from whatever excursions may be necessary to do quote-mining.

(For evolution)
If there are such good evidences then I'd believe too. Can you tell me what are the best of your evidences?

It would be difficult to distinguish evolution from special creation that looks exactly like evolution, so under "evolution" we ought to include such special creation.

And please be more specific about your standards of evidence. You seem to have set them MUCH higher for evolution than for "poofing", a.k.a. creationism.

And the word "evidences" waves a red flag -- it's mostly fundies who use that word.

Charles Darwin

Well I didn't say they did require such a hypothesis. I said the laws of logic requires such a hypothesis. I certainly agree that waves on a pond are really just the water taking on a time-varying shape.