There is an incredible debate between atheist biologist Richard Dawkins and Christian geneticist Francis Collins in the Time magazine dated November 13, 2006. What struck me the most was how these two men could debate the very divisive topic of God vs. Science in such a civil manner. I’m not accustomed to that in the debates I see or get involved in online. And while I think Francis Collins still made his points much better than Dawkins, Richard refrained from name calling (with the exception of one question). The interesting thing to note is that Collins agrees with Dawkins scientifically. He says, "I don’t see that Professor Dawkins’ basic account of evolution is incompatible with God’s having designed it." I think this way of thinking is beginning to be more widespread among evangelical Christians. Less people are taking the account of creation in Genesis as literal; this paves the way for God to be the catalyst for evolution. At this point, I still disagree, but that’s okay.
Excerpts from the debate:
Time: When would [God designing nature] have occured?
Collins: By being outside of nature, God is also outside of space and time. Hence, at the moment of the creation of the universe, God could also have activated evolution, with full knowledge of how it would turn out, perhaps even including our having this conversation. The idea that he could both foresee the future and also give us spirit and free will to carry out our own desires becomes entirely acceptable.
Time: The book of Genesis has led many conservative Protestants to oppose evolution and some to insist that the earth is only 6,000 years old.
Collins: There are sincere believers who interpret Genesis 1 and 2 in a very literal way that is inconsistent, frankly, with our knowledge of the universe’s age or of how living organisms are related to each other. St. Augustine wrote that basically is it not possible to understand what was being described in Genesis. It was not intended as a science textbook. It was intended as a description of who God was, who we are and what our relationship is supposed to be with God. Augustine explicitly warns against a very narrow perspective that will put our faith at risk of looking ridiculous. If you step back from that one narrow interpretation, what the Bible describes is very consistent with the Big Bang.
This next one will get long because I want to include what both Collins and Dawkins said. It’s an interesting exchange, though I found myself completely flabbergasted at what Dawkins suggested.
Time: Dr. Collins, you have described humanity’s moral sense not only as a gift from God but as a signpost that he exists.
Collins: There is a whole field of inquiry that has come up in the last 30 or 40 years–some call it sociobiology or evolutionary psychology–relating to where we get our moral sense and why we value the idea of altruism, and locating both answers in behavioral adaptations for the preservation of our genes. But if you believe, and Richard has been articulate in this, that natural selection operates on the individual, not on a group, then why would the individual risk his own DNA doing something selfless to help somebody in a way that might diminish his chance of reproducing? Granted, we may try to help our own family members because they share our DNA. Or help someone else in expectation that they may help us later. But when you look at what we admire as the most generous manifestations of altruism, they are not based on kin selection or reciprocity. An extreme example might be Oskar Schindler risking his life to save more than a thousand Jews from the gas chamers. That’s the opposite of saving his genes. Many of us think these qualities may come from God–especially since justice and morality are two of the attributes we most readily identify with God.
Dawkins: Can I begin with an analogy? Most people understand that sexual lust has to do with propogating genes. Copulation in nature tends to lead to reproduction and so to more genetic copies. But in modern society, most copulations involve contraception, designed precisely to avoid reproduction. Altruism probably has its origins like those of lust. In our prehistoric past, we would have lived in extended families, surrounded by kin whose interests we might have wanted to promote because they shared our genes. Now we live in big cities. We are not among kin nore people who will ever reciprocate our good deeds. It doesn’t matter. Just people engaged in sex with contraception are not aware of being motivated by a drive to have babies, it doesn’t cross our mind that the reason for do-gooding is based in the fact that our primitive ancestors lived in small groups. But that seems to me to be a highly plausible account for where the desire for morality, the desire for goodness, comes from.
Collins: For you to argue that our noblest acts are a misfiring of Darwinian behavior does not do justice to the sense we all have about the absolutes that are involved here of good and evil. Evolution may explain some features of the moral law, but it can’t explain why it should have any real significance. If it is solely an evolutionary convenience, there is really no such thing as good or evil. But for me, it is much more than that. Themoral law is a reason to think of God as plausible–not just a God who sets the universe in motion but a God who cares about human beings, because we seem uniquely amongst creatures on the planet to have this far-developed sense of morality. What you’ve said implies that outside of the human mind, tuned by evolutionary processes, good and evil have no meaning. Do you agree with that?
Dawkins: Even the question you’re asking has no meaning to me. Good and evil–I don’t believe that there is hanging out there, anywhere, something called good and something called evil. I think that there are good things that happen and bad things that happen.
Collins: I think that is a fundamental difference between us. I’m glad we identified it.
Am I the only one who noticed that Dawkins said he doesn’t believe that there is something called good, but in the next breath said that good things happen? How can good things happen if there is no good?
Time: But to the extent that a person argues on the basis of Scripture rather than reason, how can scientists respond?
Collins: Faith is not the opposite of reason. Faith rests squarely upon reason, but with the added component of revelation. So such discussions between scientists and believers happen quite readily. But neither scientists nor believers always embody the principles precisely. Scientists can have their judgment clouded by their professional aspirations. And the pure truth of faith, which you can think of as this clear spiritual water, is poured into rusty vessels called human beings, and so sometimes the benevolent principles of faith can get distorted as positions are hardened.
That is the best analogy I’ve ever seen for faith and the fallibility of humans.
Time: Do the two of you have any concluding thoughts?
Collins: I just would like to say that over more than a quarter-century as a scientist and a believer, I find absolutely nothing in conflict between agreeing with Richard in practically all of his conclusions about the natural world, and also saying that I am still able to accept and embrace the possibility that there are answers that science isn’t able to provide about the natural world–the questions about why instead of the questions about how. I’m interested in the whys. I find many of those answers in the spiritual realm. That in no way compromises my ability to think rigorously as a scientist.
Dawkins: My mind is not closed, as you have occasionally suggested, Francis. My mind is open to the most wonderful range of future possibilities, which I cannot event dream about, nor can you, nor can anybody else. What I am skeptical about is the idea that whatever wonderful revelation does come in the science of the future, it will turn out to be one of the particular historical religions that people happen to have dreamed up. When we started out and we were talking about the origins of the universe and the physical constans, I provide what I thought were cogent arguments against a supernatural intelligent designer. But it does seem to me to be a worthy idea. Refutable–but nevertheless grand and big enough to be worthy of respect. I don’t see the Olympian gods or Jesus coming down and dying on the Cross as worthy of that grandeur. They strike me as parochial. If there is a God, it’s going to be a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed.
Yes! Dawkins got something right! "If there is a God, it’s going to be a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed."
Here are a few Scriptures that Dawkins may be interested in:
"For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when the perfect thing comes, then that which is in part will be caused to cease." (1Co 13:9-10)
"And the peace of God which passes all understanding shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus." (Phi 4:7)
"For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor your ways My ways, says Jehovah. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts." (Isa 55:8-9)
This was an incredible debate to read and I would encourage you to read the whole thing. It’s refreshing to read such extreme differences of opinion without the mudslinging.
Update: Jim Jordan has a great post on Dawkin’s concluding comments.
Tags: Christianity, Faith, God, Evolution, Richard Dawkins, Francis Collins
I still do not believe in evolution. I do not believe that new species can develop from existing ones. I do, however, believe that adaptation occurs.
Were you aware that there’s a species of mosquito that’s unique to the London Underground system? It’s fairly evidently descended from a very similar species that lives aboveground in London, but the two groups are not interfertile.
As best we can tell, speciation occurs fairly readily. In fact, I’m given to understand that it’s something of a hobby amongst biology undergrads to place members of a fruitfly species in two different environments and see how long it takes them to achieve reproductive isolation.
Possibly you meant genus, or family, or order? The problem is that any such attempt to split the living world into distinct “kinds” has usually been followed by the discovery of a transitional fossil or two – Tiktaalik, for example.
Amanda you are in denial:
1. Firstly, you are going to have to get a more reputable site then what you have chosen. The one you have chosen has very poor (or should I say no) documentation. You brag and deride me about research, but one poorly documented site can hardly be considered good research.
2.Secondly, you fail to address how all the the quotes I gave which links Big Bang Theory with evolution and the origin of life is reconciled with yours. Is there a contradiction? And why?
3. The site to which you reffered me to betrays your position that evolution has nothing to do with the Big Bang Theory:
The evidence for a big bang having taken place about 15 to 20 billion years ago is overwhelming, so I naturally believe that it is the case.
The quote above demonstrates that there is evolution in play. The simple things escape you.
Amanda wrote:
“The Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution. The Big Bang involves the origin of life; evolution does not try to explain the origin of life.”
And then you quote from Wikepidia which states:
“The modern understanding of evolution is based on the theory of natural selection, which was first set out in a joint presentation in 1858 of a pair of papers by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace and popularized in Darwin’s 1859 book The Origin of Species.”
“Although there is overwhelming scientific consensus supporting the validity of evolution,[7][8][9][10] it has been at the center of many social and religious controversies since its inception because of its implications for the origins of humankind.[11]”
“Evolutionary biology is a subdiscipline of biology concerned with the origin and descent of species”
Again, Amanda, your desperate desire to find relevance with the ungodly causes you to overlook the simple. Evolution does not only deal with biology. It deals with all branches of science. But allow Wickipedia to betray your position again:
Origin of life studies is a limited field of research despite its profound impact on biology and human understanding of the natural world.
Not only does the above quote demonstrate the direct relationship origin of the universe has with evolutionary biology but also it states that it had a direct impact on it!
Ironically Enough when Wickipedia traces the History of the theory of the Origin of Life it starts with none other than Charles Darwin. Apparently biological evolution and the Big Bang Theory have the same origin. This is because as much as you would like to split hairs, GTE extends not only to biology but also abiogenesis.
GTE Defined :
“The theory of evolution is an explanation for the origin of the cosmos and life on Earth, which is more formally known as the General Theory of Evolution. It was derived from atheistic presupposition, although some theists now espouse to the idea. The theory encompasses the processes of biological evolution, the origin of life, and aspects of cosmic evolution via the Big Bang.”
The general theory of evolution holds to the following historical claims:
• That the universe, Earth, and life on Earth are old to the order of millions and billions of years;
• Abiogenesis: That life on Earth arose spontaneously from non-living chemicals into an as-yet-undescribed self-replicating protocell;
• Common descent: That all organisms on Earth are related to each other, and descended from a single spontaneously-formed protocell;
general theory of evolution should not be confused with biological evolution, which is simply the change that occurs within a population over time. Whereas biological evolution is a demonstrable, repeatable, observable fact acknowledged by both creationists and evolutionists, the theory of evolution is an unfalsifiable historical claim based on unfalsifiable philosophical assumptions, and is disputed by creationists.
Amanda is not as complicated as you would like it to be. If the evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life then why is it always mentioned as a basis for its argument?
WOMD: As a general statement, I’d note that the “argument from copy/paste” is often considered to be impolite as a debating style. This is because it puts the burden of effort almost completely on the person responding to an argument, rather than the person making it.
Lifewish, I do not at all intend to be polite. I am not a scientist so I cannot speak from my own authority. But I can compare and contrast from those who are professionals in their field. This is only sound research in play. As you can note, I offer my own comments as well to propel the debate. If all I offered was a cut and paste, then I can see how you may feel. But obviously I do much more than that. BTW, it took me much more time than 2 minutes to post my reply. In fact I had to first type it out in word so that I can be sure that I was offering a formidable rebuttal backed with sound research.
There’s no commonly-used term for something that’s verifiable but not falsifiable. I tend to think of them as weak predictions – if it hadn’t already been known at the time, it would have provided a certain amount of corroboration to the model.
Well, as I already demonstrated, I think you work to hard in trying to split hairs. If you cannot properly label it, then you have no warrant to disqualify it from it being a sound hypothesis.
I am aware of accurate scientific predictions made by evolutionary biologists. For example, the prediction that primate genomes would possess a vitamin C pseudogene, or that one human chromosome would closely resemble two fused chimp chromosomes, or that stoneflies would possess haemocyanin. More detail available on request.
Accepting your claim to be accurate, the predictions mentioned above could have easily been made by ID scientists. There is no distinction made that indicates that the above predictions can only exist under the evolutionary model.
I am aware of accurate scientific predictions made by evolutionary biologists. For example, the prediction that primate genomes would possess a vitamin C pseudogene, or that one human chromosome would closely resemble two fused chimp chromosomes, or that stoneflies would possess haemocyanin. More detail available on request.
Intelligent design theory predicts: 1) that we will find specified complexity in biology. One special easily detectable form of specified complexity is irreducible complexity. We can test design by trying to reverse engineer biological structures to determine if there is an “irreducible core.” Intelligent design also makes other predictions, such as 2) rapid appearance of complexity in the fossil record, 3) re-usage of similar parts in different organisms, and 4) function for biological structures. Each of these predictions may be tested–and have been confirmed through testing!
(1) Biochemical complexity / Laws of the Universe. High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures are commonly found. The bacterial flagellum is a prime example. Specified complexity found in the laws of the universe may be another.
(2) Fossil Record Biological complexity (i.e. new species) tend to appear in the fossil record suddenly and without any similar precursors. The Cambrian explosion is a prime example.
(3) Distribution of Molecular and Morphological Characteristics Similar parts found in different organisms. Many genes and functional parts not distributed in a manner predicted by ancestry, and are often found in clearly unrelated organisms. The “root” of the tree of life is a prime example.
(4) DNA Biochemical and Biological Functionality Increased knowledge of genetics has created a strong trend towards functionality for “junk-DNA.” Examples include recently discovered functionality in some pseudogenes, microRNAs, introns, LINE and ALU elements. Examples of DNA of unknown function persist, but discovery of function may be expected (or lack of current function still explainable under a design paradigm).
“I would note that science also rides on the achievements of past alchemists. Often, these were the same individual.”
I am sorry Lifewish but your statement above is wishful thinking at best. But I find it interesting that you did not deny the contributions that Creationists had on science.
Were you aware that there’s a species of mosquito that’s unique to the London Underground system? It’s fairly evidently descended from a very similar species that lives aboveground in London, but the two groups are not interfertile.
As best we can tell, speciation occurs fairly readily. In fact, I’m given to understand that it’s something of a hobby amongst biology undergrads to place members of a fruitfly species in two different environments and see how long it takes them to achieve reproductive isolation.
That, to me, is adaptation. One kind of fruit fly adapting to be a different kind of fruit fly is still a fruit fly.
I’m talking about actually changing from one animal to a completely different animal…for example a fish turning into a salamander which then turns into a lizard which then turns into an alligator…
It doesn’t matter how much adapting a cat does, it will never turn into a dog.
That’s what I meant when I said I don’t believe in getting a new species from an existing one (I believe this is known as macro evolution, and has never been observed).
Amanda, you were bragging about how much research you have done and how little I have done.
I am still waiting on your research.
“Amanda is not as complicated as you would like it to be. If the evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life then why is it always mentioned as a basis for its argument? “
[Amanda] That, to me, is adaptation. One kind of fruit fly adapting to be a different kind of fruit fly is still a fruit fly.
So you agree that you were wrong to say “I do not believe that new species can develop from existing ones”?
I’m not just being pedantic here – one of the things that really really annoys people on my side of the fence is a perceived tendency of creationists to shift the goalposts. They say that one species cannot develop from another; you prove them wrong; they move to discussion of cats and dogs (which are completely different suborders, for crying out loud).
If you wish to demonstrate that there are insurmountable barriers that evolution cannot pass, you must first accurately describe those barriers. Otherwise your claim adds absolutely nothing to the sum of human knowledge.
So, pick out a set of “kinds” that you think couldn’t have evolved from each other, and I’ll happily point to transitionals and other evidence. For example, I already mentioned Tiktaalik – fish body, amphibian neck – as a counterexample to your proposed fish/amphibian distinction.
[WOMD] Well, as I already demonstrated, I think you work to hard in trying to split hairs. If you cannot properly label it, then you have no warrant to disqualify it from it being a sound hypothesis.
I already explicitly described what makes a scientific hypothesis. Not knowing the name for some other concept does not make that concept an hypothesis.
Accepting your claim to be accurate, the predictions mentioned above could have easily been made by ID scientists. There is no distinction made that indicates that the above predictions can only exist under the evolutionary model.
An essential component of the logic for making those predictions was the notion of phylogenetic continuity. A key part of creationism (and, to a lesser extent, of ID) is disbelief in that concept. Hence the predictions could not have followed in the same fashion from the standard creationist or ID models.
Maybe they could have been derived from some other variant of creationism. But they weren’t. Creationists had all the same evidence as evolutionary biologists, and failed to derive any such predictions from it. So far ID isn’t doing any better – its fruits consist of one failed prediction (Wells’ centrioles idea) in fifteen years.
Intelligent design theory predicts: 1) that we will find specified complexity in biology
That’s not a prediction. As best I can tell, Dembski produced his definition to try to describe the complexity he saw in nature. Hence said complexity was known to exist before your “prediction” was made.
A key component of the definition of “prediction” is that it must be something we don’t know yet. Otherwise I could claim that the sky must be made of water because such a model “predicted” that the sky would be blue.
We can test design by trying to reverse engineer biological structures to determine if there is an “irreducible core.”
Uh… it’s logically impossible for any functional structure to not have an “irreducible core”. Again, there is no possible way this can qualify as a scientific prediction, because it follows directly from any remotely sensible model of the universe, let alone of origins.
2) rapid appearance of complexity in the fossil record
Again, to the extent that this occurs*, it was noted long before creationism was even questioned.
* I’d query whether this is as widespread as your comment would appear to suggest.
3) re-usage of similar parts in different organisms
Again, not a prediction. Still, it does lead to an interesting point: if creationism is true, why does cladistics work?
You see, you’re completely right that many organisms have similar-looking appendages, but what you appear not to have noticed is that these things are only similar to the extent that their form dictates their function. For example, the wings of bats, birds and pterodactyls all look fairly similar, because that approximate design is optimal for flight. But their internal structures are completely different.
When we look at similar-seeming creatures from different clades, we generally find the same thing. This is even more clear on a genetic level, where vast cladistic trees are regularly generated and compared with each other. If those trees have no basis in reality, how come they always correspond more or less perfectly?
Is there any good reason for God to create in a fashion so characteristic of continuous evolution, or is this time for another ad hoc cry of “He just chose to do it that way”?
I am sorry Lifewish but your statement above is wishful thinking at best. But I find it interesting that you did not deny the contributions that Creationists had on science.
When I mentioned alchemists I was referring to Isaac Newton – how is that wishful thinking?
Most of those creationists, of course, did not live at a time where there was any known viable alternative to creationism. As such, their lack of belief in evolution is no more indicative than their lack of belief in general relativity.
So you agree that you were wrong to say “I do not believe that new species can develop from existing ones”?
No. As I said in that example, it’s still a fruitfly.
At this point, I will have to bow out of the conversation. I’m not a scientist by any means (in fact, I hated the subject in school).
This is not an attempt by me to stubbornly try and hold onto my position despite any evidence that may have been given that refutes it. Nor is this an attempt on my part to run from things I don’t understand.
The fact of the matter is that if I were to continue in this thread with you Lifewish, I would offer nothing of substance to the conversation. I’m simply ignorant of science beyond the bare minimum basics (and even some of those aren’t all that clear to me).
I do hope this won’t discourage you from participating in other discussions here…you certainly make it more interesting around here! And you do it so politely, too.
No. As I said in that example, it’s still a fruitfly.
“Fruitfly” is a family rather than a species. The hierarchy is: variety, species, genus, family, order, class, phylum, kingdom.
Of these, “species” is actually the only one that’s in any way rigorously defined (the rest are a lot fuzzier). By the most common definition of “species”*, two groups of organisms can be considered different species if no member of group A can produce successful offspring with members of group B. The idea is that there should be no flow of genetic material between the two groups.
So, for example, horses and donkeys are different species – they can produce offspring (mules), but said offspring are inevitably infertile. Lions and tigers are normally considered separate species because there’s so little gene flow between them, but strictly speaking they’re just varieties – their offspring are often fertile.
By placing fruitflies in different environments and allowing them to adapt to those environments over time, it is possible to produce two groups that are not interfertile. These can therefore be legitimately considered to be different species.
The reason this definition of “species” is so critical is because it does actually mark a key boundary (often referred to as the microevolution/macroevolution boundary). The critical point is this: interfertile organisms are unable to differ too greatly from some average form. That average might change over time, but the group will still adhere to it – the flow of genes ties them together.
Different species, by contrast, experience the opposite pressure. Without the bonds of gene flow keeping the two groups together, it’s actually advantageous for them to differ as much as possible so that they’re not competing with each other**. The two species can drift apart in form and function, as lions and tigers (for example) have done.
* There are actually a couple of other definitions that get used, but let’s not complicate matters further
** This only applies to speciation events which are “sympatric” – the two new species are living in the same approximate location. It obviously doesn’t apply to speciation events caused by physical isolation (“allopatric” speciation). This is actually an interesting distinction, because it is extremely difficult to prove that sympatric speciation actually happens – it was only conclusively demonstrated in the last few years.
This is not an attempt by me to stubbornly try and hold onto my position despite any evidence that may have been given that refutes it. Nor is this an attempt on my part to run from things I don’t understand.
I understand your issue here – debating many of these subjets requires a certain amount of specialist technical knowledge, which quite understandably is not necessarily a priority for you. If there’s anything I can help with on that front, just let me know – I’m also a complete amateur at all this, but I find the science fascinating.
Just be aware that the debates that occur online, like this one, don’t cover a hundredth part of the debates that occur in proper scientific journals. The reason creationists are ignored by most reputable scientists isn’t because of ideological differences; it’s because (to quote a biologist acquaintance of mine) those journals publish a hundred pieces of evidence that refute creationism every week. At that point, the debate ceases to be of any real academic interest.
I do hope this won’t discourage you from participating in other discussions here…you certainly make it more interesting around here! And you do it so politely, too.
I’ve really enjoyed it, and I’m glad you’re happy with my contribution.
I already explicitly described what makes a scientific hypothesis. Not knowing the name for some other concept does not make that concept an hypothesis.
And I already, disproved it.
Semantics game. It is not a hypothesis, but you do not know what it is.
I guess that’s the best evolution can do.
An essential component of the logic for making those predictions was the notion of phylogenetic continuity. A key part of creationism (and, to a lesser extent, of ID) is disbelief in that concept. Hence the predictions could not have followed in the same fashion from the standard creationist or ID models.
Ha! Hogwash.
And I suppose you need to accept the existence of Santa Clause as well.
(I already tried to write this post once a while back, but Blogger ate it. I’m currently bored enough to reproduce it. Enjoy)
Ha! Hogwash.
OK, I’m going to call your bluff on this. I’ll explain the logic that led scientists to this conclusion, and you can either show why phylogenetic continuity is not a necessary assumption for that logic or present an alternative argument. If you go for the alternative argument, you will of course have to explain why no creationist at the time was able to make that argument.
Datum: Humans have 23 chromosomes (per haploid – 46 total)
Datum: Other apes have 24 chromosomes
Premise: Humans and apes share a common ancestor
Therefore: By parsimony, it’s reasonable to assume that the common ancestor had 24 chromosomes
Therefore: The human lineage has reduced its chromosome count by 1
Datum: It’s possible to reduce a chromosome count either by losing a chromosome or by fusing two existing chromosomes
Datum: Losing a chromosome through natural mutation generally results in nonviable offspring
Premise: Lineages consist of a continuous chain of ancestors and descendants (phylogenetic continuity)
Therefore: Any modification that would result in nonviable offspring cannot occur in a lineage (except at the end of it, obviously)
Therefore: The human lineage did not lose a chromosome
Therefore: The human lineage must have fused two chromosomes
Datum: Such a fusion would be detectable by dye-staining techniques and comparison with chimp chromosomes
Prediction: If we perform such a test, we will find such a fusion
OK, WoMI, your turn now: show how that prediction follows from a model of biology that does not include the notion of phylogenetic continuity.
Pingback: Common Ground » Reason is the Enemy