The only rational course for those who had no other object than the attainment of truth was to accept Darwinism as a working hypothesis and to see what could be made of it. T.H. Huxley- On the publication of Origin of Species
Palaeontologists have known of the existence of intermediate “avian” species for some time. The earliest birds evolved from dinosaurs over 125 million years ago. Their present-day descendents are indeed considered “living dinosaurs” by some scientists (I’ve often observed turkeys nearby, running at speed, and cannot fail to have the eerie sense that I’m seeing something incredibly ancient in their reptilian-like gait). Those who claim there is no evidence of “missing links” or transitional fossils between species is either profoundly ignorant, or wilfully deceptive (or shall we say, ideologically motivated). Two such intermediate species are Archaeopteryx and Confuciusornis, fundamentally, two dinosaurs with feathers. These two basal “birds” are quite similar, though separated by one major difference: Archaeopteryx lacks the avian-like highly vascular bone structure of Confuciusornis. Archaeopteryx’s bones are parallel-fibred, common in reptiles. Confuciusornis, so it seems, was one step closer to its avian descendents than Archaeopteryx. (The significance of Confuciusornis for this reason cannot be overstated. No doubt the media will eventually catch up with the scientific research and Confuciusornis will be getting more publicity in the future). Neither creature could fly, but both could likely glide. This was due to scapular orientation, i.e. they couldn’t raise their arms high enough for the recovery stroke, a crucial requirement of flapping flight. That would come later.
For some time I have studied evolutionary science. First I was a sceptic, one who decided to approach the science critically but fairly. Then I was convinced. The evidence is just too great. Species evolve over time: including the species from which humans evolved. Upon hearing this admission, anyone who is still immersed in the ideological and cultural background I came from will feel as though they have been hit by a thunderbolt, or perhaps they will quickly dismiss these statements. That is fine. In the future, however, I plan on posting tidbits about my own personal research into human origins. So my friend: “if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire.”
“Those who claim there is no evidence of “missing links” or transitional fossils between species is either profoundly ignorant, or willfully deceptive (or shall we say, ideologically motivated).”
ReplyDeleteOuch. Allow my profound ignorance for a moment. How many species in the animal kingdom have existed? Yes, millions. And you have presented two species as evidence for evolution between species. Two! How many fossils have been found? Yes, millions. And yet again, there are two specimens offered as evidence. Why the obsession with fossils? The support for transitional species from the fossil record is pitiful, at best. A much better case can be presented from species that exist today. For example:
The platypus
The flying fish
The basilisk lizard (they can run upright on two legs across water)
The colugo (misnamed the flying lemur)
There are many other species that exist today that one could easily present as evidence for the theory of evolution. The fossil record just doesn’t cut it.
What do you get when you put two slugs in a puddle of mud and add a billion years? You and I.
I admire your faith, my friend.
Well I can't exactly speak about all the transitional finds here on this little blog. There are simply too many. These are merely two I am interested in. I do not present these species as evidence for evolution, that is not my main thrust here. I take evolution as a given and speak to the importance of both these species for our understanding. They are indeed transitional species. (Plus, dinosaurs with feathers are quite fascinating creatures don't you think?). The support for transitional species from the fossil record is not exactly "pitiful", this includes transitional hominid species. In fact, the numbers are increasing all the time.
ReplyDeleteYou are quite right to suggest that species are still evolving today. There is plenty of evidence for this. As far as your dismissal of the fossil record I am shocked. I didn't realize you have done so much research in this area. I've found the exact opposite findings. The fossil record does in fact "cut it" and it was this very record that provided foundational evidence for the theory and continues to do so, along with a host of other scientific data being collected from living species, DNA analysis, etc.
You've used a classic rhetorical move to dismiss the whole idea: "What do you get when you put two slugs in a puddle..."? Creationists have used this type of emotive argument for some time, attaching Darwin's head to a monkey body, bumper stickers that say: "Darwin is a monkey's uncle" etc. In other words, it lacks any substance. It is usually the last resort of the desperate. A human is not a slug (though I don't have anything against slugs) and to have the reader envision a muddy puddle with slugs in it and then juxtapose that to a couple of humans "a billion years" later is as I said, both profoundly ignorant and willfully deceptive. Is this what your "faith" will lead you to do? Is this done in the defense of truth or in the defense of one's own comfort i.e. faith?
Believe me I respect your journey very much, but this type of argumentation is below you.
I apologize for any disrespect. You know I value your journey as well. I suppose your comments struck more on a personal, emotional level, and I would have been much wiser to ponder prior to posting. Your post seemed to take the standard position of most evolutionary biologists, which is to imply creationists are an ignorant, less intelligent species. The truth is, many scientists believe in an intelligent designer, but are oppressed and shunned by their colleagues, receive disproportionate research funding, and in some extreme cases, lose their jobs, simply for concluding based on the scientific evidence that there might be a God.
ReplyDeleteI have done quite a bit of reading about fossils, actually. Probably way less than you, but I have concluded that it’s an area I just don’t want to waste any more time in. I’ll try to explain why.
There are huge limitations to C14(carbon) dating and other radiometric dating techniques. Science cannot tell us how old a rock or fossil is, at least not in the millions or billions of years. They have used these techniques in various forms over the years to create and adjust the geologic time scale. Here is a glaring example of circular reasoning that the scientific community must confess. At times they use rocks and fossils to modify the geologic time scale, and other times the use that very scale to date rocks and fossils! I believe neither are very accurate or reliable. I find fossils fascinating, but scientists grossly overestimate what they can tell us.
Two things about fossilization are curious. Rock striations in the earth are different ages, based on the depth of layer. Deeper strata are older, and rock layers at the surface are younger. Many fossils are found very shallow, at the surface level, and yet time and time again we’re told they are x number of millions of years old, inconsistent with the rock ages they preach. Large animals rarely get fossilized today. Fossilization requires rapid burial, not millions of years. I find it very curious that you’ll never hear an evolutionary scientist say that there is a good possibility many fossils were created by a global flood...
The scientific method. Good science is based on controlling variables, experimentation, and repeatability. Darwin’s theory of evolution should not be considered scientific. No experiment has been done to show any proof that a species can or ever has changed into another species. The brilliant position from scientists is that it takes a kazillion years to happen, so don’t ask us to prove it, because we can’t. Just like any systematic theology cannot be scientifically tested, the theory of evolution cannot be either.
Creationists and evolutionary scientists both have a bias when looking at any evidence. Both already have a position to start with. Neither position can be proven with good, solid science, and therefore each requires an enormous leap of faith. What I admire about your search is you attempt to eliminate any previous bias when reaching conclusions, and do it better and more sincerely than anyone I know.
You have inspired me to investigate further, I have much to learn in this area. I challenge you to look into methods of radiometric dating, and the creation of the geologic time scale.
I think the discrimination against scientists is largely institutional. Different institutions will be more or less responsive to scientists who profess faith in a grand Designer. I’m sure many scientists from both the theistic and the atheistic camp have been frustrated by their colleagues at various times. What is certain, however, is that the God of these theistic scientists looks very little like the God of the evangelical camp. (See next comment)
ReplyDeleteThese are the usual arguments put forth by Creationists:
1) “The dating methods are horribly flawed.”
2) They resort to an overly rigid definition of scientific methodology in order to exclude theoretical work which contradicts long cherished beliefs.
3) The equalization of theology and science, i.e. both require “faith”. (Not realizing of course that they’ve just admitted their theology has no basis in reality.
All three are (unfortunately for our conversation) ridiculous. I wish I could agree with you here and move on, but here I must be ruthless: These arguments are exactly why I must conclude that either these Creation “scientists” are profoundly ignorant or wilfully deceptive. I say “scientists” because a) They are hardly that, and b) They are responsible for leading many people astray. One should not accuse those who read these pseudo-scientists of being ignorant, merely deceived.
This may all seem rather harsh. I feel, however, justified in using this language. So much damage has been done I wonder if it will be possible to undo it. I am encouraged by the fact that the most influential religious organizations are making moves to recognize the truth uncovered by scientific progress. While debate about the nature of the human soul still continues, there is no question about the role of evolution in the development of the human person:
“Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth...”
“While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage.”
International Theological Commission- Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God, Vatican Archives, 2002.
Since then support for the theory has been mounting at the Vatican. For good reason: Not to support it would not only be dishonest, it would be irresponsible. Here too leading Catholic scientists explicitly reject the theory of “Intelligent Design” as “unscientific”. It is not “correct from a methodological point of view to stray from the field of science while pretending to do science." (Dr. Francisco J. Ayala, professor of biology at the University of California, Irvine, and a former Dominican priest).
This is why I have so much hope. The Church was the recipient of such scorn after the helio-centric model of the solar system was proven correct, (against the Churches’ original pronouncement that it was not) it will forever not only be highly critical of scientific findings, it will admit when those findings have substance.
To continue an earlier thought: "What is certain, however, is that the God of these theistic scientists looks very little like the God of the evangelical camp." These theistic scientists are the honest ones. They are the ones who know the science, who understand the methodologies, and who know the limits of their field. I feel confident that these scientists deserve the name "scientist":
ReplyDeleteAlister McGrath- It is impossible to list all his qualifications here. He is both a molecular biophysicist and Christian theologian. http://users.ox.ac.uk/~mcgrath/
Francis Collins- Christian geneticist and Head of the Human Genome Project. His team isolated the genes responsible for cystic fibrosis, Huntington's disease, neurofibromatosis, multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1, and the M4 type of adult acute leukemia. He appeared in the November 13, 2006 issue of Time in a debate with Richard Dawkins (I have a copy if you would like to read it).
John Polkinghorne- Particle physicist and theologian. He played a significant role in the discovery of the quark.
Richard Swinburne- Philosopher of Science and Religion at Oxford. Writer of hugely influential books "The Existence of God" and "Faith and Reason". Eastern Orthodox Christian.
Martin Rees- Cosmologist and astrophysicist. Important contributor to our understanding of cosmic microwave background radiation. He also seriously challenged the Steady State Theory (an earlier alternative to the Big Bang Theory). Anglican.
Keith Ward- Philosopher of Religion and Anglican Priest. Interested in the relation between science and religion. Author of over 20 books and popular lecturer.
I could go on here for quite some time.. the point is, these are Christians who have had to come to terms with the findings of their scientific research. In each case they were faithful to the truth they discovered. It's not always pretty, but it is far and away more honest than the agenda set by the majority of Creation "scientists" whose claims to scientific fidelity are as questionable as their conclusions.
I actually really appreciate the list of theistic scientists, that is very encouraging.
ReplyDeleteA few years ago I cut out an article about the discovery of a ancient, giant, beaver-like fossil. It stated that one single find threw off their understanding of when mammals ventured onto land by 30 million years. 30 million years! One fossil! Something known and accepted by the scientific community for many, many years was proven way off on that day.
Since you have avoided my two arguments about the limitations of radiometric dating, and the circular reasoning inherent in dating rocks and fossils, I assume I have a decent case here.
I can understand your need to be ruthless. The possibility that you could be wrong about some of these things seems to threaten you.
I cannot speak about theistic fools who harbor such hate in their hearts toward evolutionary scientists and have such a strong agenda. It's disappointing for sure.
The reason I haven't answered the arguments about radiometric dating and the so-called circular argument concerning dating, is not because I find them threatening. I'm well aware of these arguments and have investigated them previously. As I said before I unfortunately have to categorize them as ridiculous, echoing many genuine Christian scientists who have examined the arguments as well. The reason I listed these theistic scientists (who all support the methods of dating and historical research carried on today) was to show that serious scientists pay scant attention to many of the claims made by Creationists about science, whether they are Christians or not. There is simply no basis for their claims.
ReplyDeleteI'm not aware of the great beaver dating scandal, but if improved methods have shown a difference of 30 million years the wonderful thing about the scientific community is that it will critique, test, and eventually accept those findings. That the Church was as open to evidence as this community...
I have listed a group of highly reputable scientists who are all Christian. They all affirm the scientific soundness of the theory of evolution and are well-versed in various dating methods, using them regularly in much of their work. Here you disagree with them. It's a curious thing when this situation occurs. Your own brothers and sisters in the Church, each with scientific qualifications a yard long, are in total agreement with much of what Creationists stand against. How does one account for this? It is simple: Creationist science, is not science at all. I encourage you to leave these spin-doctors alone and concentrate on the work done by your brothers and sisters that is neither lacking in integrity nor thoroughness.
There's a good reason this nonsense is not taught in Canadian schools of higher education. It is not due to a prejudiced secular or atheistic worldview (as often characterized by supporters of Creationist science, even though many Canadian schools are administered by people of faith). The reason is far less sinister and far more academically honest: Creation science lacks the rigour and the integrity to be classified as science.
I dislike suggesting this but perhaps it cannot be avoided: could the very thing you accuse me of (feeling threatened that I could be wrong) not be an admission cloaked in an accusation? I will not analyze this further here, but I will say these kinds of accusations are rarely productive and that is why I hesitate to go on. I will simply say, no, I am not threatened by the possibility here. There are some areas of my thinking (certain political formulations, for example) where this might be the case, but not here. Perhaps we have reached the limits of this conversation. We can agree to disagree.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWow. There is too much here. Wow wow.. One thing though, if i may. The following statement by Dr We is either a bit sloppy (at best) or erroneous:
ReplyDelete"Rock striations in the earth are different ages, based on the depth of layer. Deeper strata are older, and rock layers at the surface are younger. Many fossils are found very shallow, at the surface level, and yet time and time again we’re told they are x number of millions of years old, inconsistent with the rock ages they preach."
It is much more complex than that. Rock undergoes tremendous & varied pressures & forces. In terms of geomorphology, what was once deep in the earth can - after millions or billions of years end up - "at the surface level..."
Par ailleurs, i would like to clarify why i wrote "there is too much here." I just find it incredible that there is even still any argument. That there needs to be someone like Jeremy here, trying to speak calmly and rationally over the din of what amounts to a kind of fear.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that somehow "belief" is still threatened by the notion of evolution. To me this is incredible.
But then there is faith, "And not faith, but faith that is not faith," as the old poet's verse goes, " is the truth of faith /that does not need/ or need to know/ says neither yes nor no/ but faith, that happ'ly / just lets go.."