Basics of evolution at BioLogos

They need to evolve into such an understanding.

Well, sort of.

Glen Davidson

I've always enjoyed Dennis Venema's posts over at BioLogos. I think he's a great guy, and his course should be very interesting. I'm sure the creationists will attack him nonstop. Feel free to drop in!

… just average folks who would like to learn more, but need to start at the beginning and work up slowly - not jump in halfway through, with technical terms and jargon flying around. They need a context for the discussion. They need to explore the basics, first, before building on that understanding to explore the finer details.

Eric Finn said:

… just average folks who would like to learn more, but need to start at the beginning and work up slowly - not jump in halfway through, with technical terms and jargon flying around. They need a context for the discussion. They need to explore the basics, first, before building on that understanding to explore the finer details.

Yes, I can agree with that. The concept of the biological evolution is quite easy to understand. However, the fact that there are dedicated “evolutionary biologists” seems to indicate that the finer details are not quite as easy – or they are still under study. Basically, the same description applies to the theory of general relativity. The question is : What kind of knowledge a person needs to be a fully-fledged member of his or her society.

harold said: Since high school students should receive an education that maximizes their opportunity to contribute, subjecting them to evolution denial, which can only make functioning anywhere in the biomedical arena more difficult, is a very poor idea. Therefore, a high school graduate should have some basic understanding of the theory of evolution.

harold said: Even people who don't have a high school diploma, or who got one that didn't include good biology, or who forget what they learned, should try to be informed enough that they don't fall for obvious scams.

Eric,

I'm not sure if you're new here, but if so you might like to poke around some of the old comment threads before speaking as if the regulars here don't know about the misuse of thermodynamics by creationists. Panda's Thumb was created as a response to the rise of the ID movement and the Discovery Institute, and the better-known members of the ID crowd did *not* use thermodynamic arguments against evolution but information theory arguments. They are, of course, essentially saying the same thing (i.e. "I shall now use my misunderstanding of one field of science to refute another"), but they had moved their goalposts from basic misunderstanding of thermodynamics to advanced misunderstanding of information theory.

Secondly, I couldn't disagree more when you seem to be suggesting (please correct me if I'm wrong) that somehow ignorance is a different problem to being taken in by "playing with words and confusing concepts." If a person is well educated (i.e. no longer ignorant), they are much more likely to see through fallacious wordplay and conceptual slipperiness. And, yes, I think a basic understanding of evolution is essential to being a well-rounded individual in a modern society. For much the same reason as I think a basic understanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics -- it's not like most people are ever going to use the 2LoT in their daily lives, but it does mean most of them won't sink money into perpetual motion scams. And with evolution, while most people will never need to calculate a Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (or even know what that is), there is almost 100% probability that at some time in their lives they will take an antibiotic or a course of chemotherapy and a proper understanding of evolutionary principles will help them make good decisions for themselves (and in the case of antibiotics, for the entire community).

Eric Finn said:

harold said: Even people who don't have a high school diploma, or who got one that didn't include good biology, or who forget what they learned, should try to be informed enough that they don't fall for obvious scams.

Dear harold, I thank you for your reply. It appears to me that you put some effort in it. In the case that we are going to exchange messages also in the future, I would like to make one thing clear. I do not doubt biological evolution as a phenomenon. Also, it seems to me that the modern synthesis, which is called the theory of biological evolution, is at this time the best available explanation for the currently observed phenomena, and the known track records derived from paleontology. Some 30 years ago it was very important that everyone knew what a microprocessor is. Much the same way, now it is important to know what genes and other sequences of the DNA can, or can not do. My guess is that the DNA will carry the public interest longer than the fairly simple application of digital electronics did. You seem to be concerned about the education in sciences in the U.S. Granted, there may be signs of possible problems that can be seen even from a distance, e.g. from the Northern Europe. We get the same stuff, only a little bit delayed. There are examples of professors (a professor in biochemistry of wood processing and a professor of education) endorsing those ideas in public. How do we counter this development, if we think it is not right? Incidentally, I just found out that Mike Elzinga gave his comment. Most of the criticism against the theory of biological evolution is based on the concept of entropy. What does physics say about entropy ? The very definition of the entropy deals with energy, not order or disorder. The definition by Clausius talks about energy and the definition in the quantum statistical description talks about energy. Physics does not contradict the proposed mechanisms for biological evolution. I understand that you think that teaching the theory of evolution even more would be the proper answer. Sure, that should be one part of the answer, but the question is not about ignorance. The question is about deliberately mangling the currently known science in general, and playing with words and confusing concepts.

I understand that you think that teaching the theory of evolution even more would be the proper answer. Sure, that should be one part of the answer, but the question is not about ignorance. The question is about deliberately mangling the currently known science in general, and playing with words and confusing concepts.

Richard,

Is there a distinction I'm missing between an evolutionary creationist and an old earth creationist?

Incidentally, I just found out that Mike Elzinga gave his comment. Most of the criticism against the theory of biological evolution is based on the concept of entropy. What does physics say about entropy ? The very definition of the entropy deals with energy, not order or disorder. The definition by Clausius talks about energy and the definition in the quantum statistical description talks about energy. Physics does not contradict the proposed mechanisms for biological evolution.

Is there a distinction I’m missing between an evolutionary creationist and an old earth creationist?

Karen S.,

That makes sense. I'd previously thought of theistic evolution as a branch of OEC, but I can see why theistic evolutionists would prefer not to be put in the same clade.

harold,

That's the key to the success of DI: they don't have to create credible evidence or arguments, they just have to create talking points that can be repeated without understanding.

Chris Lawson said: Eric, I'm not sure if you're new here, but if so you might like to poke around some of the old comment threads before speaking as if the regulars here don't know about the misuse of thermodynamics by creationists. Panda's Thumb was created as a response to the rise of the ID movement and the Discovery Institute, and the better-known members of the ID crowd did *not* use thermodynamic arguments against evolution but information theory arguments. They are, of course, essentially saying the same thing (i.e. "I shall now use my misunderstanding of one field of science to refute another"), but they had moved their goalposts from basic misunderstanding of thermodynamics to advanced misunderstanding of information theory.

Chris Lawson said: harold, That's the key to the success of DI: they don't have to create credible evidence or arguments, they just have to create talking points that can be repeated without understanding.

Is there a distinction I’m missing between an evolutionary creationist and an old earth creationist?

Evolutionary Creationism: "The belief that God (the Christian God) used evolution to create life on Earth. This theory says that God designed the natural processes that guide evolution, and endowed Mankind with a soul when it had reached a sufficient level of sentience..." --the Urban Dictionary

Where does Shannon or Kolmogorov enter the scene? Maybe I am ignorant, stupid, confused… – or all of those at the same time.

Pity poor Floyd.

He lives in a void.

"The Bible is literal!"

"Please don't be so critical!"

And watch out for HELL,

Have some barbeque sauce, might as well.

A believer with a brain terrifies FL.

Liar For Jesus claimed: An old earth creationist IS a real creationist

The fact is that, after all these years, Theistic Evolution remains an unsupportable oxymoron.

Karen S. said: A believer with a brain terrifies FL.

One of FL’s problems – very likely his major problem – is that he has developed a reflexive habit of pretending to know everything about everything when in fact he knows nothing.

A little checking reveals that he constantly bluffs about his knowledge of science; and he always doubles down in his bluffing even after he has made a complete ass of himself.

So why should anyone believe that FL knows anything about the religions views of others? What does FL know about how they are able to reconcile their religious beliefs with science? Nothing FL says squares with anything other religious folks say about their own religion. He does the same doubling down about the religious beliefs of others as he does about his assertions about science.

The only conclusion one can come to is that everything that FL asserts is a brazen lie. He knows nothing yet pretends to know everything. What kind of sectarian beliefs drive that kind of ego?

Anyone with a functioning brain terrifies and enrages FL.

Philosophically, I suspect FL has a good point here. If one is to believe in gods who DO things, then you might as well take them at their word what they did. Conversely, if natural explanations are sufficient (so far, no scientific explanation requires anything supernatural), then gods really contribute nothing in the way of explanation or understanding. They are superfluous afterthoughts.

A theistic evolution is one who says that life probably arose by evolutionary feedback processes, and has certainly continued to develop using such processes, and Oh, by the way, there's one or more gods we don't need, but I believe in them anyway.

A creationist says that the appearance of evolution, beyond trivial variation, is an illusion and must be because God Said So! Poof "theory" is required and not negotiable. And this position is at least consistent, if not very helpful.

Mike Elzinga said: The only conclusion one can come to is that everything that FL asserts is a brazen lie. He knows nothing yet pretends to know everything. What kind of sectarian beliefs drive that kind of ego?

FL said: So, what do you do when your chess pieces are in permanent Zugzwang? What do you do when your team NEVER makes it to the playoffs? Simple: Do a makeover. Find another moniker.

W. H. Heydt said:

FL said: So, what do you do when your chess pieces are in permanent Zugzwang? What do you do when your team NEVER makes it to the playoffs? Simple: Do a makeover. Find another moniker.

Stopped clock effect... You are correct. That's why there is the series: Creationism, Creation Science, Scientific Creationism, Intelligent Design. A series of makeovers under new names for the same old--wrong--ideas.

Karen S. said: A believer with a brain terrifies FL.

If I might play God's advocate for a moment...

The arguments I can see against a creator God proceed from observed manifestations of his supposed Will: God ordained gravity; God ordained that human beings are able to walk before they have any notion of depth perception or the effects of gravity; God therefore ordained that toddlers fall to their deaths.

That is, the arguments against a theistic God that I think valid are rooted in the problem of theodicy. A God whose Will operates thus is not worth worshipping, even if He actually existed.

On the question of the redundancy of God, I am far less convinced. The Universe exists; it is ordered by predictable natural law. These facts require explanation, and the null hypothesis, by definition, explains nothing. Unicorns, fairies, leprechauns, whatever; they, too explain nothing, unless they are God.

What if we posit as an explanation a God who not only created the Universe, set it running, and disappeared, but who ordered its entire operation through all time and space, being present and active in every interaction of every particle and quantum that exists, ever existed, or ever will exist? What if we posit that such a God created and ordered the Universe so that it brought forth life, and then intelligence, out of Will, but of that Will endowed that intelligence with free will of its own? That even what appears to us to be blind chance may also be a manifestation of Divine Will? That, in fact, all things are so, excepting only our own free will?

Apart from the theodicy objection above, what do we know that contradicts such an idea? Have we a better explanation for the Universe, assuming that an explanation is necessary? I must admit I think not. I say so with some reluctance, for it opens a yawning void. I simply do not know, and that fact has gnawed at me ever since I became aware of my ignorance.

But what I do know that FL's God is far less than this, and, being less, is not God. His God had to work by fiat alone, abrogating His own Will that the Universe function by orderly natural law. Thus, FL's God is actually incoherent and limited; FL is thus not only theologically wrong, he is actually in heresy.

But, as we have seen so many times here, FL's God is actually FL himself, writ large - but not so very large as that.

Interesting replies, as always. But may I suggest something? It's honestly looking as if nobody here is really in a hurry to defend the specifics of theistic evolution, or evolutionary creationism, or oil-and-water-ism. Heh.

But hey, speaking of theistic evolutionists, did you know that TODAY was their big day?

That's right, it's Evolution Sunday (now renamed Evolution Weekend in an effort to drag in those Friday and Saturday religions).

This is the TE's Super Bowl Sunday, all in an effort to get the clergy--NOT the scientists, but the clergy--to sign up on the "Clergy Letter Project" and help sell the Gospel of Theistic Evolution in their respective houses of worship.

In the past, you might would have seen a Pandasthumb article about this annual event, but apparently it's not even showing up on the Panda radar this year. Oh well.

But not to worry! On another blog, I have carefully churned up a goodly batch of analysis and discussion about Evolution Weekend 2013 and Theistic Evolution, and I suspect that anyone who is interested in TE (and by extension, BioLogos), may wish to check things out. So, please enjoy!

http://cjonline.com/blog-post/contra-mundum/2013-02-07/evolution-weekend-2013-and-how-fight-it

FL

Dave Luckett said: If I might play God's advocate for a moment... The arguments I can see against a creator God proceed from observed manifestations of his supposed Will: God ordained gravity; God ordained that human beings are able to walk before they have any notion of depth perception or the effects of gravity; God therefore ordained that toddlers fall to their deaths. That is, the arguments against a theistic God that I think valid are rooted in the problem of theodicy. A God whose Will operates thus is not worth worshipping, even if He actually existed. On the question of the redundancy of God, I am far less convinced. The Universe exists; it is ordered by predictable natural law. These facts require explanation, and the null hypothesis, by definition, explains nothing. Unicorns, fairies, leprechauns, whatever; they, too explain nothing, unless they are God. What if we posit as an explanation a God who not only created the Universe, set it running, and disappeared, but who ordered its entire operation through all time and space, being present and active in every interaction of every particle and quantum that exists, ever existed, or ever will exist? What if we posit that such a God created and ordered the Universe so that it brought forth life, and then intelligence, out of Will, but of that Will endowed that intelligence with free will of its own? That even what appears to us to be blind chance may also be a manifestation of Divine Will? That, in fact, all things are so, excepting only our own free will? Apart from the theodicy objection above, what do we know that contradicts such an idea? Have we a better explanation for the Universe, assuming that an explanation is necessary? I must admit I think not. I say so with some reluctance, for it opens a yawning void. I simply do not know, and that fact has gnawed at me ever since I became aware of my ignorance. But what I do know that FL's God is far less than this, and, being less, is not God. His God had to work by fiat alone, abrogating His own Will that the Universe function by orderly natural law. Thus, FL's God is actually incoherent and limited; FL is thus not only theologically wrong, he is actually in heresy. But, as we have seen so many times here, FL's God is actually FL himself, writ large - but not so very large as that.

Well, how nice is this to drop by for my PT fix, and find this! Thanks for the nod and your kind words, Richard.

phhht said: Suppose for a moment, just because we really want to, that a universe-creating god does exist. What aspects of reality does that explain? How is that hypothesis any more satisfactory than ignorance?

Dave Luckett said:

phhht said: Suppose for a moment, just because we really want to, that a universe-creating god does exist. What aspects of reality does that explain? How is that hypothesis any more satisfactory than ignorance?

If we do that, it explains why and how we came to exist. I find that more satisfactory than ignorance. Alas, I am still of the opinion that I am ignorant. But, as I explained to Biggy, at tedious length, long ago, I don't know that I don't know, either.

"It just is" is not an explanation, as any teenager will tell you.

A God that created space and time - space and time both being parts of creation - is necessarily distinct from them, and hence does not need to be created, since such a God would exist without them, in a timeless eternity. The Universe, on the other hand, did come into existence at a singularity, a point in space, a moment in time, which can be and has been identified, pretty much. Hence, we can say that it was created.

The only conclusion one can come to is that everything that FL asserts is a brazen lie.

Dave Luckett said: "It just is" is not an explanation, as any teenager will tell you. A God that created space and time - space and time both being parts of creation - is necessarily distinct from them, and hence does not need to be created, since such a God would exist without them, in a timeless eternity.

If God created the Universe, then He created time and space. If He created time and space, then He must exist independently of them. The question "where did God come from?" is therefore meaningless. He is independent of space. The only answer is "nowhere; He never originated", not that "never" is a meaningful concept anyway, since it implies "never in time", and He is also independent of time.

harold said: 2) Both Shannon information theory and the Kolmogorov treatment of complexity have valid applications in biomedical science, of course.

The more discussion the better for critics of errors in subjects claiming to be scientific.
In all these things this YEC creationist always presses about the understanding of what biological scientific evidence is and how it relates to evidence that evolutionists invoke.
Fossils, genetics, marine mammals, biogeography aare not in any way biological evidence for a biological theory/hypothesis.
They are only data points and lines of reasoning that connect them to the claims of a evolution in biology.

Fossils, genetics, marine mammals, biogeography aare not in any way biological evidence for a biological theory/hypothesis. They are only data points and lines of reasoning that connect them to the claims of a evolution in biology.

Close. Actually, quote mines, misrepresentations, evasions and outright lies are not evidence. Now I wonder why he left out those things?

Robert Byers said: The more discussion the better for critics of errors in subjects claiming to be scientific. In all these things this YEC creationist always presses about the understanding of what biological scientific evidence is and how it relates to evidence that evilutionists invoke. Fossils, genetics, marine mammals, biogeography aare not in any way biological evidence for a biological theory/hypothesis. They are only data points and lines of reasoning that connect them to the claims of a evolution in biology.

There are so many theories of evolution.

I feel it is a moot point and not worth arguing, whether information is increasing or decreasing in a given mutation, or in other types of changes, e.g. during genetic drift.

Eric Finn said: I feel it is a moot point and not worth arguing, whether information is increasing or decreasing in a given mutation, or in other types of changes, e.g. during genetic drift.

FL said:

The only conclusion one can come to is that everything that FL asserts is a brazen lie.

Really, Mike? So far, I'm still waiting for you -- or better yet, any of the Panda theistic evolutionists -- to demonstrate that I've lied (or even been merely mistaken) regarding ANY of my specific comments about theistic evolution evolutionary creationism so far. Yet you're unable to. You say I'm lying, yet you can't even support your claim. Even Venema himself has stopped by, and yet he wasn't able to offer any refutation to the one objection that was given to his specific statement WRT human origins. Nor are you guys and gals able to do so in his place. Hey, not trying to harangue or nag about things. However, I was honestly expecting a minimal attempt at specific, supportable refutations from the good ole Panda gang. (Especially if I'm doing "a brazen lie", as Mike claims.) But that minimal attempt is completely absent. How come? FL

The only conclusion one can come to is that everything that FL asserts is a brazen lie.

FL said: An old earth creationist IS a real creationist, for example, Hugh Ross or Rich Deem. They believe in an old Earth, of course, but they DO reject evolution for the most part, they DO take their starting-point and presuppositions from the Bible (just like the Young-Earth Creationists do). They are likewise at least generally supportive of the concept or notion of intelligent design, and clearly prefer that explanation instead of evolution.

The Universe, on the other hand, did come into existence at a singularity, a point in space, a moment in time, which can be and has been identified, pretty much. Hence, we can say that it was created.

Chris Lawson said: And Kolgomorov's theorems are no better. One of the most important proofs by Kolgomorov is that for any string (and for these purposes, a gene can be described as a string in the ACGT alphabet) there is a variable K that describes its complexity...and the value of K is not computable. That means that any two genes, say Original Gene and Mutant Variant will have their own K value, but since these are not computable, one cannot simply say K(original) > K(mutant) as the creo/IDists would like to have it.

Chris Lawson said: And one of the interesting points about Shannon's information theory that creationists never understand is that by Shannon's formulation, if there is a known gene sequence, *any* mutation is an increase in information whether that mutation is deleterious, advantageous, or neutral.

FL said: Even Venema himself has stopped by, and yet he wasn’t able to offer any refutation to the one objection that was given to his specific statement WRT human origins. Nor are you guys and gals able to do so in his place.

Eric Finn wrote:There is a (minor) point I would like to make. Please, do not refer to my writings plainly as “Eric wrote”. There is a regular writer with the name eric. I appreciate eric’s line of thinking highly and would be mainly flattered if mistaken to be him. However, I am not entirely sure, if that works the other way round.

Chris Lawson said: And one of the interesting points about Shannon’s information theory that creationists never understand is that by Shannon’s formulation, if there is a known gene sequence, *any* mutation is an increase in information whether that mutation is deleterious, advantageous, or neutral.

Is this really true? I thought Shannon information had to do with string compressability (without loss of detail). Mutations that result in a more compressable string would decrease Shannon information and entropy, right?. I completely agree that the both the S. and K. definitions of information provide no support for creationism, I’m just picking a nit here.

harold said:

Chris Lawson said: And one of the interesting points about Shannon’s information theory that creationists never understand is that by Shannon’s formulation, if there is a known gene sequence, *any* mutation is an increase in information whether that mutation is deleterious, advantageous, or neutral.

Is this really true? I thought Shannon information had to do with string compressability (without loss of detail).

It is absolutely true. Any mutation is potentially additional information in the appropriate context.

The more important point here is that essentially everything ID/creationists say about "information" and "complexity" is pure gibberish.

Under either of those treatments of information, a mutation could either increase it or decrease it.

Dave Luckett said: If God created the Universe, then He created time and space. If He created time and space, then He must exist independently of them. The question "where did God come from?" is therefore meaningless. He is independent of space. The only answer is "nowhere; He never originated", not that "never" is a meaningful concept anyway, since it implies "never in time", and He is also independent of time.

On that same score, I think FL has a point (and yes, it pains me to say so). Both YEC and evolution are intellectually more honest than TE. TE is just intellectual gymnastics born of a recognition of the evidence of evolution while clinging to theism. At least YEC makes explicit what sort of world it is. They are just flat wrong, but at least they (the true believers, not the con men) are honest about it.

eric said:

Chris Lawson said: And one of the interesting points about Shannon's information theory that creationists never understand is that by Shannon's formulation, if there is a known gene sequence, *any* mutation is an increase in information whether that mutation is deleterious, advantageous, or neutral.

Is this really true? I thought Shannon information had to do with string compressability (without loss of detail). Mutations that result in a more compressable string would decrease Shannon information and entropy, right?. I completely agree that the both the S. and K. definitions of information provide no support for creationism, I'm just picking a nit here.

scienceavenger said: On that same score, I think FL has a point (and yes, it pains me to say so). Both YEC and evolution are intellectually more honest than TE. TE is just intellectual gymnastics born of a recognition of the evidence of evolution while clinging to theism. At least YEC makes explicit what sort of world it is. They are just flat wrong, but at least they (the true believers, not the con men) are honest about it.

Mike Elzinga said:

eric said:

Chris Lawson said: And one of the interesting points about Shannon's information theory that creationists never understand is that by Shannon's formulation, if there is a known gene sequence, *any* mutation is an increase in information whether that mutation is deleterious, advantageous, or neutral.

Is this really true? I thought Shannon information had to do with string compressability (without loss of detail). Mutations that result in a more compressable string would decrease Shannon information and entropy, right?. I completely agree that the both the S. and K. definitions of information provide no support for creationism, I'm just picking a nit here.

A mathematical point about the Shannon entropy calculation: This is given by - ∑ p_i ln p_i where the set of probabilities {p_i} fit the condition ∑ p_i = 1, and the sums in each case are over i going from 1 to Ω the number of states (or events). This entropy calculation becomes a maximum when all of the p_i = 1/Ω , in other words, when all states or events are equally probable; in which case, the Shannon entropy becomes simply ln Ω. So you can see that in order to calculate such a thing, you have to have a set of states or events the probabilities of which add up to one. But the major thing that distinguishes Shannon entropy from the entropy of a thermodynamic system is that, in the thermodynamic system, all those states or events interact with each other so that when the system is isolated, the states become equally probable and the entropy goes to a maximum. Simply applying that Shannon entropy sum to a chain of bits or characters is not going to tell you much if you don’t sample that entire set of bits or characters enough times to determine what the probabilities of the individual bits or characters are; and it will be a meaningless calculation if the sum of those probabilities don’t add up to one. That latter restriction is important in whether or not that Shannon entropy calculation applies to the set of bits or characters one is investigating.

That should be "Dembski and Sewell" not "Behe and Sewell", but whatever.

To follow up on the information thingy, the reasoning goes like this.

1. Shannon was dealing with the transmission of information as a signal (this is crucial to understanding it).

2. If you have an information sequence known to both the transmitter and the receiver, then by definition, you are not transmitting any information by sending it. The shortest gene I know of is the E. coli mccA gene, a mere 21-nucleotides long (ATG CGT ACT GGT AAT GCA AAC). If both the transmitter and the receiver already know that sequence, then no information is added. If, however, there is a new mutation (e.g. ATG CGA ACT GGT AAT GCA AAC), then there is an extra 2 bits of information (2 bits because the DNA code uses 4 letters instead of binary). Since CGT and CGA both code for arginine, this is a completely neutral mutation...

3. ...which means that if you were transmitting the amino acid sequence instead of the DNA sequence, you would send the same signal (MRTGNAN) and there would be no increase in information.

4. ...which means that this mutation caused *an automatic increase* in Shannon information at the genome level, *zero increase* in Shannon information at the protein level, and *has nothing whatsoever to do with gene fitness anyway*.

5. ...which just goes to show that creoIDs who use information theory don't have a freaking clue, even if they are the Isaac Newton of Apologetics.

Observation #2:

In terms of Kolmogorov complexity, there isn't much advantage in compressing the small mccA gene above. But for a larger gene, say the massive human gene TITIN with its ~100,000 nucleotide sequence, it would be much easier to transmit the signal "go look up TITIN in the gene database and change nucleotide #1598 to A" to send the mutant variant than to transmit the entire 100,000 nucleotides, or even the 27-33,000 amino acids.

Again, the creoIDs aren't thinking on this level.

Observation #3:

There is a really neat online Shannon entropy calculator here.

Using it to calculate the Shannon entropy of the two mccA gene variants I mentioned above, we get:

H(mccA original) = 1.9699

H(mccA mutant) = 1.93472

So this means that this neutral mutation with zero influence on fitness, results in a *reduction* in entropy -- exactly the opposite of what the Dembskis of this world insist is going on with mutation and evolution.

What's more, I can show a massive reduction in entropy with a disabling mutation...

If that second triplet mutates again from CGA to TGA, this is now a stop codon, which means the gene will only be 1 codon long and express only a single amino acid, clearly not a functional gene. And the Shannon entropy?...

H(mccA completely disabled) = 1.58496

According to creationist misunderstanding of info theory, this utterly useless mutant gene is better than the original functional version because it has less entropy.

Chris, those are pure gold. Thanks! Comments like those are what makes it worth wading through the creationist bafflegab that stimulated them.

2. If you have an information sequence known to both the transmitter and the receiver, then by definition, you are not transmitting any information by sending it. The shortest gene I know of is the E. coli mccA gene, a mere 21-nucleotides long (ATG CGT ACT GGT AAT GCA AAC). If both the transmitter and the receiver already know that sequence, then no information is added. If, however, there is a new mutation (e.g. ATG CGA ACT GGT AAT GCA AAC), then there is an extra 2 bits of information (2 bits because the DNA code uses 4 letters instead of binary). Since CGT and CGA both code for arginine, this is a completely neutral mutation…

Mike and Chris, thanks much for your responses. Very helpful.

Chris Lawson said: There is a really neat online Shannon entropy calculator here.

harold said: I differentiate beliefs that are merely unjustified, but not in conflict with reality, from beliefs that are in conflict with reality.

In his introduction to Evolution Basics, Dennis Venema said: The goal of this course is straightforward: to provide evangelical Christians with a step-by-step introduction to the science of evolutionary biology. This will provide benefits beyond just the joy of learning more about God’s wonderful creation. An understanding of the basic science of evolution is of great benefit for reflecting on its theological implications, since this reflection can then be done from a scientifically-informed perspective. From time to time we might comment briefly on some issues of theological interest (and suggest resources for those looking to explore those issues further), but for the most part, we’re going to focus on the science.

If TE reduces the amount or degree of science rejection among some groups of theists, isn't that a good thing?

I know I've written this before, but I really, really dislike the terms "theistic evolutionist" and "theistic evolution."

Even though I'm Christian, when I'm interpreting calorimetry results, I'm not doing "theistic thermodynamics." When I'm calculating chemical reaction rates, I'm not engaged in "theistic chemical reaction kinetics".

Similarly, when I say that I accept modern evolutionary theory as the best available scientific explanation for the development of biological diversity, I am accepting the same theory that my non-theist co-commenters here accept, with the same caveats about provisional acceptance. My belief in God is irrelevant to my evaluation of the evidence for modern evolutionary theory in the same way it's irrelevant to my consideration of thermodynamics, chemistry, mechanics, and other areas of scientific inquiry. Tagging my position with the label "theistic" can be (and has been) interpreted to suggest otherwise.

As far as I'm concerned, someone who believes evolution gets a behind-the-scenes assist now and then from a deity is not an "evolutionist" because they do not accept a strictly naturalistic (scientific) explanation.

SWT said: I know I've written this before, but I really, really dislike the terms "theistic evolutionist" and "theistic evolution."

Even though I'm Christian, when I'm interpreting calorimetry results, I'm not doing "theistic thermodynamics." When I'm calculating chemical reaction rates, I'm not engaged in "theistic chemical reaction kinetics". Similarly, when I say that I accept modern evolutionary theory as the best available scientific explanation for the development of biological diversity, I am accepting the same theory that my non-theist co-commenters here accept, with the same caveats about provisional acceptance. My belief in God is irrelevant to my evaluation of the evidence for modern evolutionary theory in the same way it's irrelevant to my consideration of thermodynamics, chemistry, mechanics, and other areas of scientific inquiry. Tagging my position with the label "theistic" can be (and has been) interpreted to suggest otherwise.

As far as I'm concerned, someone who believes evolution gets a behind-the-scenes assist now and then from a deity is not an "evolutionist" because they do not accept a strictly naturalistic (scientific) explanation.

Kevin B said:

Even though I'm Christian, when I'm interpreting calorimetry results, I'm not doing "theistic thermodynamics." When I'm calculating chemical reaction rates, I'm not engaged in "theistic chemical reaction kinetics". Similarly, when I say that I accept modern evolutionary theory as the best available scientific explanation for the development of biological diversity, I am accepting the same theory that my non-theist co-commenters here accept, with the same caveats about provisional acceptance. My belief in God is irrelevant to my evaluation of the evidence for modern evolutionary theory in the same way it's irrelevant to my consideration of thermodynamics, chemistry, mechanics, and other areas of scientific inquiry. Tagging my position with the label "theistic" can be (and has been) interpreted to suggest otherwise.

You might have this backwards. "Theistic evolution" is a religious position rather than a scientific one. It is a position that allows (say) an Anglican to be comfortable with both evolution and the Nicene Creed at once. Young Earth Creationists might not have issues with chemical reaction kinetics, but radio-nuclide dating is another matter, it is not?

Henry J said: If TE reduces the amount or degree of science rejection among some groups of theists, isn't that a good thing?

scienceavenger said:

Henry J said: If TE reduces the amount or degree of science rejection among some groups of theists, isn't that a good thing?

With a nod to SWT, it wouldn't seem to. They are rejecting the sufficiency of evolutionary mechanisms.

scienceavenger said: With a nod to SWT, it wouldn't seem to. They are rejecting the sufficiency of evolutionary mechanisms.

Just Bob said: Such a god would be indistinguishable from nature -- which doesn't mean there can't be one.

Just as the ID proponent strips away everything that could conflict with the law, the TE strips away everything that conflicts with the best knowledge we have.

scienceavenger said: They are rejecting the sufficiency of evolutionary mechanisms.

phhht said:

Just Bob said: Such a god would be indistinguishable from nature -- which doesn't mean there can't be one.

No, no, of course there could be one. But there isn't any reason I can see to think so.

SWT said: As far as I'm concerned, someone who believes evolution gets a behind-the-scenes assist now and then from a deity is not an "evolutionist" because they do not accept a strictly naturalistic (scientific) explanation.

harold said: To me, anyone who argues that any kind of deistic or supernatural intervention is required to explain the diversity and relatedness of life is a creationist, pure and simple. A TE is someone who agrees that the theory of evolution adequately explains the diversity and relatedness of life, but believes in a god anyway.

It never occurred to me that someone who accepted evolutionary science and happened to believe in a diety merited their own label beyond “scientifically literate believer” or “Deist”.

phhht said:

Just Bob said: Such a god would be indistinguishable from nature -- which doesn't mean there can't be one.

No, no, of course there could be one. But there isn't any reason I can see to think so.

I think the greatest challenge you face is not simply explaining evolution, but dismantling the most common misconceptions.

Just one more note on entropy (I think I posted this somewhere before, but I have lost track of where it is).

The other ID/creationist confusion about entropy is exemplified by Granville Sewell’s recent reassertion that living organisms correspond to a decrease in entropy because they are more “ordered”. This is the usual ID/creationist nonsense.

However, the entropy of a system depends on the internal degrees of freedom of the constituents that make up the system. So we would expect liquids like water to have more internal degrees of freedom than when they are frozen into a solid.

The heat capacity of a substance is given by,

C(T) = dQ/dT.

The specific heat is the heat capacity per unit mass, C(T)/m, and the molar heat capacity is the specific heat multiplied by the molecular weight.

All heat capacities are a function of temperature; and they approach zero as the absolute temperature approaches zero.

Now complex organic molecules have more internal degrees of freedom than simpler molecules. Some degrees of freedom are typically “frozen out” as a complex system of atoms and molecules become a solid.

Soft matter tends to have more degrees of freedom than do solids because, at the temperatures that assemblies of molecules are soft, the kinetic energies of the molecules are comparable to their mutual binding energies. So complex organic molecules in the soft or liquid state tend to have many internal degrees of freedom, and therefore large molar heat capacities.

So if we are to make an estimate of the entropy of a living organism, we should recognize that because they are made up of complex molecules, most of which are in the soft state, their specific heats, heat capacities, or molar heat capacities are quite large relative to what they would be if the atoms and molecules of which they are composed were in their solid state at the same temperatures.

The entropy of an organism can, in principle, be found by rearranging the first equation above, dividing by the absolute temperature T and integrating from zero up to the temperature at which the organism exists. In other words,

S(T_exists) = ∫dQ/T = ∫C(T)dT/T.

(Of course the organism would have to pass from a solid state to a soft matter state with a corresponding change in the heat capacity; but if we just integrated between two temperatures in which the organism remained soft, there would still be a relatively large change in entropy because the heat capacity is large.)

In general, we would expect the heat capacities of these organisms to be higher than the heat capacities of simpler substances; therefore, kilogram for kilogram, the entropies of living organisms tend to be higher than if the atoms and molecules of which they are made had remained in their solid forms in the environment at the same temperature.

So it is not the case that life on Earth decreases entropy; it increases it by being maintained at a temperature where much of it is soft. The heat bath provided by a solar-illuminated Earth results in an increase in entropy because much of the energy absorbed by living organisms is distributed among many more degrees of freedom.

Mike,

That's a thermodynamic error even some pro-evolution people make. Living creatures do not reduce entropy -- the chemical reactions in our bodies wouldn't work if that were true. What living creatures do is ride the entropy gradient provided by external energy sources (mostly from solar energy, but also from thermo-chemical energy around deep sea vents) to metabolise and reproduce. That's still pretty amazing, but is has nothing to do with reversing entropy.

As some wag once said, if you believe living creatures survive by reducing entropy, allow me to seal you in this coffin-sized black box...

I need to push back, a little, at how parts of the previous two comments might be read.

It's fairly easy to show (without appealing to "order", whatever that means) that living organisms do in fact exist in reduced entropy states -- that an organism's entropy increases when it dies. However, living organisms are net generators of entropy. Organisms maintain their reduced entropy through flows of matter and energy across their boundaries, and the processes occurring with the organisms result in a net (organism + its surroundings) entropy increase.

SWT,

I would still consider that formulation a little misleading (although not strictly incorrect), partly because *everything* exists in a "reduced entropy state" until such time as it reaches maximal possible entropy, presumably at the heat death of universe. This includes non-living things as well. A pond of hot water has a reduced entropy state compared to a pond of water at ambient temperature, and while you might object by saying "but a pond of hot water will cool down if left to itself, which makes it different to living things", there are places such as hot springs where the external energy source of heat escaping from the earth's core allows the water to stay at low entropy for huge lengths of time. So this entropy effect doesn't work differently for living things vs. non-living things. A creature dying and rapidly gaining entropy is no different to a hot spring losing its volcanic source and rapidly gaining entropy. The essential problem is that a dead creature and a cooling volcanic spring have both lost their capacity to feed on available energy sources.

The bottom line is that thermodynamic definitions of life don't really work well at all and tend to play into the hands of creationists who will abuse the 2LoT shamelessly.

Type in “heat capacities of organic compounds” into Google and come up with a whole bunch of stuff like this.

In energy and mass flow gradients, it is indeed common for matter to be maintained in higher entropy states and still be localized and organized. Some of those assemblies are possible only when there are energy gradients and nearby temperatures where stuff can stay assembled. And as long as it can stay assembled in complex forms, large numbers of degrees of freedom that can store energy exist.

What happens after the energy and mass flows stop depends a great deal on temperature and environment.

In the case of living organisms, if the temperature is not too low, “decay” sets in; but other organisms, micro and macro, participate in taking it apart.

If the temperature is low enough, entropy decreases as whatever heat metabolism has generated dissipates and soft matter hardens into a solid state.

The foam at the base of a waterfall is matter held in a state of higher entropy and localized organization by the local energy and mass flow. Remove the flows, and the foam eventually dissipates or coalesces depending on what is in the water or beer. ;-)

Metabolic processes do indeed generate more entropy; but if they stop, and nothing else takes over, that generation of entropy ceases. Putting living organisms inside a calorimeter screws up a steady-state mass and energy flow and doesn’t take into account both the metabolic processes and the energy stored in the internal degrees of freedom. But the measurements of metabolism and the measurements of heat capacities can be handled separately without killing the organism.

It was the ID/creationists who started the mess of assigning low entropy to living organisms. But just looking at heat capacities alone – and heat capacities are functions of temperature – we can recognize that systems of complex molecules have more internal degrees of freedom. Therefore, if we are to assign an entropy calculation (or change) to a system of complex molecules at a given temperature – even if that temperature is maintained by internal metabolic processes along with the external heat baths - those entropies have to be larger.

I realize that these comments regarding entropy, Shannon entropy, and other measures of complexity are a bit off topic. My main reason for pointing this out is to illustrate that, within the debates surrounding ID/creationist’s thermodynamics “arguments,” much of this kind of behavior of matter and energy is lost. The real issues are more complex; nevertheless, however one cuts it, the existence of complex molecules maintained in a soft matter state within a larger heat bath means more entropy, not less. Metabolism and physical activity of course also increase entropy.

ID/creationists don’t have a leg to stand on; especially Granville Sewell.

Chris Lawson said: A pond of hot water has a reduced entropy state compared to a pond of water at ambient temperature, and while you might object by saying "but a pond of hot water will cool down if left to itself, which makes it different to living things", there are places such as hot springs where the external energy source of heat escaping from the earth's core allows the water to stay at low entropy for huge lengths of time.

Gods, guys, I love it when you talk nerdy!

eric asked: Hey TErs out there on PT. In terms of evolution, what exactly do you think God did?

Or consider this: God is omnipotent and omnipresent. That means that He is personally concerned with each and every event that has ever occurred, excepting only the operation of our free will, which he grants, even where it opposes His. He ordains, has ordained, and will ordain, the interaction of every particle and every quantum that exists, existed, or ever will exist. All chance events, like all natural law, are as much his creation as any miracle.

So God ordained a Universe and ordered its natural laws. He ordained evolution, and also ordained each and every interaction of living things and their environments, every point mutation, every selection pressure, every change in allele, all for the purpose of producing a living being that could know and worship Him, and eventually be ushered into His fellowship.

Dave Luckett said: Or consider this: God is omnipotent and omnipresent. That means that He is personally concerned with each and every event that has ever occurred, excepting only the operation of our free will, which he grants, even where it opposes His. He ordains, has ordained, and will ordain, the interaction of every particle and every quantum that exists, existed, or ever will exist. All chance events, like all natural law, are as much his creation as any miracle. So God ordained a Universe and ordered its natural laws. He ordained evolution, and also ordained each and every interaction of living things and their environments, every point mutation, every selection pressure, every change in allele, all for the purpose of producing a living being that could know and worship Him, and eventually be ushered into His fellowship.

phhht said: Gods, guys, I love it when you talk nerdy!

Mike Elzinga said:

Dave Luckett said: Or consider this: God is omnipotent and omnipresent. That means that He is personally concerned with each and every event that has ever occurred, excepting only the operation of our free will, which he grants, even where it opposes His. He ordains, has ordained, and will ordain, the interaction of every particle and every quantum that exists, existed, or ever will exist. All chance events, like all natural law, are as much his creation as any miracle. So God ordained a Universe and ordered its natural laws. He ordained evolution, and also ordained each and every interaction of living things and their environments, every point mutation, every selection pressure, every change in allele, all for the purpose of producing a living being that could know and worship Him, and eventually be ushered into His fellowship.

Nice; but it exacerbates the theodicy issues if one also believes that the deity cares about the sentient lives it creates. If such a deity doesn’t care, attempting to implore the deity to fulfill some wish or to worship such a deity doesn’t make much sense.

SWT,

My apologies. The reason I lost you was that I made an error and reversed the entropy change for a cooling pond of water. Mea maxima culpa.

Still, I hope the point I was trying to make, i.e. that the simplistic creationist view of entropy fails as a description of living organisms, was clear.

Chris Lawson said: SWT, My apologies. The reason I lost you was that I made an error and reversed the entropy change for a cooling pond of water. Mea maxima culpa. Still, I hope the point I was trying to make, i.e. that the simplistic creationist view of entropy fails as a description of living organisms, was clear.

Mike Elzinga said:

phhht said: Gods, guys, I love it when you talk nerdy!

:-) When I was giving talks to the public, I was urged by friends – rightfully as it turned out – to toss out the math, carefully explain any technical jargon, and not be so nerdy. So I adjusted and formed the habit of avoiding nerdy talk in public. Yet talking nerdy is so much easier and much more fun; so here on Panda’s Thumb I have been cautiously returning to nerd chat.

Chris Lawson said: Living creatures do not reduce entropy -- the chemical reactions in our bodies wouldn't work if that were true. What living creatures do is ride the entropy gradient provided by external energy sources...

It’s fairly easy to show (without appealing to “order”, whatever that means) that living organisms do in fact exist in reduced entropy states

I would still consider that formulation a little misleading (although not strictly incorrect), partly because *everything* exists in a “reduced entropy state” until such time as it reaches maximal possible entropy...

As some wag once said, if you believe living creatures survive by reducing entropy, allow me to seal you in this coffin-sized black box...

Carl Drews said: In the beginning...

Did God create the universe 20 billion years ago, leave, and then come back 10-50 thousand years ago when Homo sapiens were ready to receive souls? Kind of a Punctuated Deism? I asked my (Anglican) pastor about this possibility after the Ash Wednesday service tonight, and he pointed out that Punctuated Deism is not what the Bible describes. Job 5:10 asserts that “God gives rain on the earth and sends waters on the fields.” God is always present with His creation

Chris Lawson said: SWT, My apologies. The reason I lost you was that I made an error and reversed the entropy change for a cooling pond of water. Mea maxima culpa. Still, I hope the point I was trying to make, i.e. that the simplistic creationist view of entropy fails as a description of living organisms, was clear.

prongs said:

Mike Elzinga said:

phhht said: Gods, guys, I love it when you talk nerdy!

:-) When I was giving talks to the public, I was urged by friends – rightfully as it turned out – to toss out the math, carefully explain any technical jargon, and not be so nerdy. So I adjusted and formed the habit of avoiding nerdy talk in public. Yet talking nerdy is so much easier and much more fun; so here on Panda’s Thumb I have been cautiously returning to nerd chat.

When one understands a technical concept deeply words do not suffice to describe it. Then the descriptive language of mathematics is the correct language to use, the only language sufficient. Unfortunately if one does not understand the concept with similar profundity then that better language becomes merely a jumble of confusing equations, an unintelligible foreign language.

There are two rejoinders that seem appropriate for a large number of anti-evolutionary arguments, and they both apply in the case of the "entropy" argument:

1. How does "intelligent design" address the issue? That is, even supposing that there is some problem with evolution violating the second law of thermodynamics, how is it that "intelligent design" is permitted to violate the law? After all, the laws of thermodynamics were discovered precisely because the clever 19th century engineers came up against limitations in what they could design. Intelligent designers cannot design perpetual motion machines, machines that violate the laws of thermodynamics.

2. Why does not the argument apply at least as much to the processes of reproduction, genetics, development, growth and metabolism? As you point out, an evolutionary process is made up of parts like reproduction. How is it that, for example, an acorn can become an oak tree, and an oak tree can produce large numbers of acorns - without violating the laws of thermodynamics?

My feeling is that it is best to avoid technical arguments, especially arguments involving mathematics. Most people hate mathematics. Even at best, the professional evolution denier can give the impression that there is a legitimate "controversy" which can be disputed by scientifically knowledgeable people.

TomS said: There are two rejoinders that seem appropriate for a large number of anti-evolutionary arguments, and they both apply in the case of the "entropy" argument

eric said: I'd add a third: how does nature know?

I’d add a third: how does nature know?

The situation I’m envisioning is a solid, impermeable rectanglar slab thermally insulated on the edges, with the two opposing faces held at different temperatures, say 298K and 318K. A steady state, with constant thermal conductivity, there will be a linear temperature profile across the slab, but the average temperature of the slab will be 308K.

TomS said: My feeling is that it is best to avoid technical arguments, especially arguments involving mathematics. Most people hate mathematics. Even at best, the professional evolution denier can give the impression that there is a legitimate "controversy" which can be disputed by scientifically knowledgeable people.

Dave Luckett said: Actually, it provides a possible response to the theodicy issue: our free will decisions have consequences that force changes to God's will. (This, it is true, assumes that God values human free will even above human weal.) There would be no pain, no death and no suffering were God's will alone done. But our free will, even where it is not malevolent, is short-sighted, imperfect, ignorant, at odds with each other's and with God's. This must necessarily have the effect of producing a less than perfect Universe in which pain and suffering are inevitable. The fact that we can't see an immediate connection between the two is immaterial. Why would we expect that we would?

eric said:

Carl Drews said: In the beginning...

Thanks for your answer. If I understand your 1, 2, and 3 paragraphs, you are espousing what I like to think of as the "casino craps" model of divine guidance. The casino does not have rig the dice to accomplish its goals (make money); the game set up statistically guarantees it given a large number of throws and tables. Analogously I read your position as: God does not have to 'rig' or intervene in evolution to eventually, somewhere, get some intelligent being that is suitable for ensoulation. He can just let the rules of the cosmos he set up stochastically reach that result. Is that correct?

Did God create the universe 20 billion years ago, leave, and then come back 10-50 thousand years ago when Homo sapiens were ready to receive souls? Kind of a Punctuated Deism? I asked my (Anglican) pastor about this possibility after the Ash Wednesday service tonight, and he pointed out that Punctuated Deism is not what the Bible describes. Job 5:10 asserts that “God gives rain on the earth and sends waters on the fields.” God is always present with His creation

I'll admit that I find this paragraph less cogent than your others. As a non-believer, I don't understand the distinction your pastor is drawing. What is the empirical difference between an ongonig presence and punctuated deism (nice phrase, by the way)? Just saying "no, he doesn't do the latter, he does the former" is a somewhat empty assertion if we don't know what the former really means in terms of impact. But again, thanks for answering!

Carl Drews said: God wanted to bring forth one life form "in His image" (Genesis 1:26-27). That image of God is not physical; but loving, cognitive, intelligent, and communicative. Your casino model of Divinely guided evolution will inevitably produce such a life form. I can almost guarantee that the special creature will also have an internal cavity for digesting nutrients (a gut), but that part of the body plan is less important to God. When one discusses how the earth-sun system supports and drives evolution without any explicit tinkering on the part of God, the issue of Deism usually comes up. I made sure to address that issue in the same post; I have much experience with creationists claiming that TE "leaves God with nothing to do." The Biblical answer in Job 5:10 is that God does everything in nature, including the snow falling outside my window right now. However, you know as well as I do that snow comes from meteorology, and we know how the Bergeron process works. Empirically I cannot remove God from this world temporarily and watch the rain stop or gravity stop working. The impact for believers is that God is always available for prayer. If you are looking for evidence for God, the best place to go is the Christian Gospels.

eric said: Internal storage -> run metabolism: riding internal gradient. What neither have specifically talked about, but IMO actually a massive and critical part of biology.

Mike Elzinga said:

Dave Luckett said: Actually, it provides a possible response to the theodicy issue: our free will decisions have consequences that force changes to God's will. (This, it is true, assumes that God values human free will even above human weal.)

But our free will, even where it is not malevolent, is short-sighted, imperfect, ignorant, at odds with each other's and with God's. This must necessarily have the effect of producing a less than perfect Universe in which pain and suffering are inevitable.

[Mike Elzinga] Implicit in that argument, as I understand it, is that a deity has no choice in how to construct a universe.

Mike Elzinga said: The entropy of a thermodynamic system depends, if it is isolated, only on the number of accessible energy microstates; not on their specificity. That notion of specificity begins to conflate entropy with “information” and “order.”

The entropy of a thermodynamic system depends, if it is isolated, only on the number of accessible energy microstates; not on their specificity. That notion of specificity begins to conflate entropy with “information” and “order.” If the system is not isolated – i.e., is in contact with a larger heat bath – then the internal energy is not distributed uniformly over those accessible microstates; and that means the entropy is lower than it would be if the system is isolated and the internal energy has a chance to distribute over every microstate with equal probability.

Mike Elzinga said: Specificity never enters the picture in any calculation of entropy.

eric, God is perfect, but elements of his Universe are not - ie, us, for a start. It must follow that even God's Universe is not perfect, and that by His will. From that, it must follow that it does not operate to our perfect weal. Hence, we suffer. Hence, what we call natural evil.

It is logically impossible for God to create a perfect Universe that has elements of imperfection in it.

Dave Luckett said: God is perfect...

phhht said:

Dave Luckett said: God is perfect...

No, God is NOT perfect. Now how are we gonna tell who's right? Jihad?

Just Bob said:

phhht said:

Dave Luckett said: God is perfect...

No, God is NOT perfect. Now how are we gonna tell who's right? Jihad?

Using the Bible as evidence, Yah is neither perfect, nor omniscient, nor omnipotent, nor omnipresent. Sure, there are passages that state or imply that he is all those things. That makes the Bible self-contradictory and... imperfect.

And this is an example where the PT regulars can have a calm, reasonable discussion about religion, even though there are strong disagreements. No name calling. No ALL CAPS. And *both* sides can cogently express their opinions. Someone asks a question; someone else responds by explaining what they meant. Other's chime in with analysis of what the response might imply. At which point the responder is able to (and does) elaborate in more detail, without resorting to "Well, I already said that", or "You're too stupid to understand". Instead, people on each side (not just "both" sides) are willing to admit that they don't know everything, and that their understanding might be wrong. There is depth to the discussion, understanding, questioning, and reasoned thought, not just superficial regurgitation of canned talking points, or (God forbid) quoting of scripture.

Note to the PT Trolls: it can be done. It isn't "our" fault that similar discussions with Creationists quickly degenerate into verbal mud wrestling, with all the intellectual sophistication of a cat fight. (At least on one side.)

Thanks, all. Always refreshing when done well.

Mike,

I usually don't bother getting into theodicy arguments because that is where the cognitive dissonance is at its thickest, even with non-creationists. As you say, the idea that god *had* to create a universe with the 2LoT running means that, well, god couldn't choose to make the universe any way it liked. Which means there are limits on god's powers.

Really, I find polytheistic religions far more credible. The idea that there are multiple gods with competing agendas has far more explanatory power than a single monolithic, all-powerful, all-knowing, perfectly benign god.

Chris Lawson said: Really, I find polytheistic religions far more credible. The idea that there are multiple gods with competing agendas has far more explanatory power than a single monolithic, all-powerful, all-knowing, perfectly benign god.

Chris Lawson said: Mike, I usually don't bother getting into theodicy arguments because that is where the cognitive dissonance is at its thickest, even with non-creationists. As you say, the idea that god *had* to create a universe with the 2LoT running means that, well, god couldn't choose to make the universe any way it liked. Which means there are limits on god's powers. Really, I find polytheistic religions far more credible. The idea that there are multiple gods with competing agendas has far more explanatory power than a single monolithic, all-powerful, all-knowing, perfectly benign god.

Mike said: I suspect that many religious folks today attend churches mostly for tradition, social cohesion and support, and friendship.

Scott F said: And this is an example where the PT regulars can have a calm, reasonable discussion about religion, even though there are strong disagreements. No name calling. No ALL CAPS. And *both* sides can cogently express their opinions. Someone asks a question; someone else responds by explaining what they meant. Other's chime in with analysis of what the response might imply. At which point the responder is able to (and does) elaborate in more detail, without resorting to "Well, I already said that", or "You're too stupid to understand". Instead, people on each side (not just "both" sides) are willing to admit that they don't know everything, and that their understanding might be wrong. There is depth to the discussion, understanding, questioning, and reasoned thought, not just superficial regurgitation of canned talking points, or (God forbid) quoting of scripture. Note to the PT Trolls: it can be done. It isn't "our" fault that similar discussions with Creationists quickly degenerate into verbal mud wrestling, with all the intellectual sophistication of a cat fight. (At least on one side.) Thanks, all. Always refreshing when done well.

dalehusband,

Sorry if I wasn't being clear enough. I'm a dyed-in-the-wool atheist. All I meant was that *relative* to monotheism, I find polytheism more supportable. Rather in the way that *relative* to anti-vaxxers, I find Loch Ness Monster enthusiasts rather endearing.

Chris Lawson said: Mike, I usually don't bother getting into theodicy arguments because that is where the cognitive dissonance is at its thickest, even with non-creationists. As you say, the idea that god *had* to create a universe with the 2LoT running means that, well, god couldn't choose to make the universe any way it liked. Which means there are limits on god's powers. Really, I find polytheistic religions far more credible. The idea that there are multiple gods with competing agendas has far more explanatory power than a single monolithic, all-powerful, all-knowing, perfectly benign god.

Dave Luckett said: eric, God is perfect, but elements of his Universe are not - ie, us, for a start. It must follow that even God's Universe is not perfect, and that by His will.

From that, it must follow that it does not operate to our perfect weal. Hence, we suffer. Hence, what we call natural evil.

dalehusband said:

Chris Lawson said: Really, I find polytheistic religions far more credible. The idea that there are multiple gods with competing agendas has far more explanatory power than a single monolithic, all-powerful, all-knowing, perfectly benign god.

Or how about no gods at all? Or a universe created by a sadistic amoral being that would be more like our conception of Satan?

bbennett1968 said: ... horribly nice religious people ...

Mike Elzinga said:

Just Bob said:

phhht said:

Dave Luckett said: God is perfect...

No, God is NOT perfect. Now how are we gonna tell who's right? Jihad?

Using the Bible as evidence, Yah is neither perfect, nor omniscient, nor omnipotent, nor omnipresent. Sure, there are passages that state or imply that he is all those things. That makes the Bible self-contradictory and... imperfect.

Old Testament: “We prophesy that the New Testament will be right.” New Testament: “The Old Testament was wrong.”

Dave Luckett said:

Mike said: I suspect that many religious folks today attend churches mostly for tradition, social cohesion and support, and friendship.

It's also clear that for the conservative Christian right in the US, membership, or better, a leading role in a Church (of the right kind, that is) is more often a sort of group identity ritual with a political value, rather than a manifestation of religious fervour, per se.

I quit theological discourse at the first sign of heat. Cowardice, perhaps, but I dislike offending those who would otherwise be my allies in what I think is plainly a more important conflict than that over the possible existence of God. I mean the one against wilful dishonesty and ignorance peddled as a virtue.

Dave Luckett said: I quit theological discourse at the first sign of heat. Cowardice, perhaps, but I dislike offending those who would otherwise be my allies in what I think is plainly a more important conflict than that over the possible existence of God. I mean the one against wilful dishonesty and ignorance peddled as a virtue.

eric,

I've read a lot of Dave Luckett's posts over many years, and I doubt that he was arguing *for* that particular philosophy, just that it is one way of addressing theodicy from a Christian perspective. I happen to disagree with him that it's a solid rejoinder, but Dave tends to look for ways to accommodate* reasonable religious folk in the fight against creationism and ID. It's a Big Tent strategy with the entrance requirement being honesty about the evidence for evolution and modern science. Again, I happen to disagree with this approach, but I can't really fault it as unworkable or malicious.

My reservation is that it means some of us have to walk on eggshells on certain topics, and I read far too many forcefully-expressed opinions by religious folk who are reasonable about evolution but not about, say, gay marriage or prayer in school, and I think it's important to chip away at all the crusted-on excrescence of religion that stands in the way of humanistic policies while Dave thinks it's important to build alliances and choose our battles. I'm not sure that either one of us really right or wrong, they're just different approaches and probably each have their place. (And, of course, I'm sure we would both find situations where the other's approach is better -- I'm certainly not accusing Dave of turning a blind eye to homophobia and anti-secularism and I certainly wouldn't bust up an anti-creationist school board over an ally's insistence on spending a minute in prayer before each meeting.)

Anyway, this is long-winded way of saying I think you've misread Dave's beliefs and intentions. Dave, please correct me if I'm wrong.

*Yes, I know that's a loaded word, but it's the best one I can come up with.

Dave Luckett said:

Mike Elzinga said:

Dave Luckett said: Or consider this: God is omnipotent and omnipresent. That means that He is personally concerned with each and every event that has ever occurred, excepting only the operation of our free will, which he grants, even where it opposes His. He ordains, has ordained, and will ordain, the interaction of every particle and every quantum that exists, existed, or ever will exist. All chance events, like all natural law, are as much his creation as any miracle. So God ordained a Universe and ordered its natural laws. He ordained evolution, and also ordained each and every interaction of living things and their environments, every point mutation, every selection pressure, every change in allele, all for the purpose of producing a living being that could know and worship Him, and eventually be ushered into His fellowship.

Nice; but it exacerbates the theodicy issues if one also believes that the deity cares about the sentient lives it creates. If such a deity doesn’t care, attempting to implore the deity to fulfill some wish or to worship such a deity doesn’t make much sense.

Actually, it provides a possible response to the theodicy issue: our free will decisions have consequences that force changes to God's will. (This, it is true, assumes that God values human free will even above human weal.) There would be no pain, no death and no suffering were God's will alone done. But our free will, even where it is not malevolent, is short-sighted, imperfect, ignorant, at odds with each other's and with God's. This must necessarily have the effect of producing a less than perfect Universe in which pain and suffering are inevitable. The fact that we can't see an immediate connection between the two is immaterial. Why would we expect that we would?

On the other hand, if one is not arguing for an omni-benevolent God, that kind of makes the whole theodicy problem moot, doesn't it.

Though, extending my ramblings to address Mike's previous point, it's not so much "that the deity cares about the sentient lives it creates." Rather, it's that the deity cares about creating sentient lives.

Turning to another human analogy, humans create games with limiting rules all the time. Sure, any person is capable of "cheating" at the game. But that's not the point. It's playing within the rules that makes the game interesting. God could "cheat" by just poofing what he wants. It's not that he couldn't cheat. But if he wants to play the game, he has to play by the rules, even if they are rules that he (perhaps arbitrarily) defined.

Chris Lawson said: ...Anyway, this is long-winded way of saying I think you've misread Dave's beliefs and intentions. Dave, please correct me if I'm wrong.

Dave,

I'm not trying to start a mutual fan club or nuthin', but I don't mind the occasional exercise in apologetics to (i) try to put oneself in the frame of mind of someone one disagrees with, and (ii) to prevent any given forum becoming an echo chamber (obviously in these forums we have the loopy creo brigade to prevent echo chambers forming -- although the more hardcore of them like FL and RB have constructed extraordinary internal echo chambers whereby everything that is ever said to them becomes an echo of how right they are no matter how much it contradicts them...but since they never advance a single argument worth a toss, it's good to be reminded that there are non-loopy apologists out there even if one finds apologetics unconvincing).

(By gum, I'm writing in tangled knots today.)

Scott F,

I actually kind of like the idea of a creator running a sim-style universe. There's room for everything from an active interventionist sim (like SimCity where the player has to intervene all the time) to a completely non-interventionist sim (like a Julia set generator where you plug in the initial variables and then see what it looks like).

While I also like the idea of intervening as cheating, this is still a subtle problem as even a lot of computer games played for fun will have players use cheat codes to make the game a breeze. I don't understand this myself -- as someone once said, cheating at solitaire is cheating yourself -- but I also know of times when a computer game has been buggy, so I've gone into the console to correct the bug. Which could be seen as cheating, but it's cheating to make the game run the way it was intended by its designers.

The problem for traditional omnipotent/omniscient monotheisms is that this model, while it would perfectly explain a god who intervenes at moments that the objects inside the game (i.e. us) cannot possibly hope to understand, it also implies (i) a god-player that is using buggy code and therefore is not omnipotent and omniscient and may even be a n00b, (ii) a god-player that may not be the same entity as the creator, (iii) a god-player with a lack of empathy for the sentient entities in its universe (or else why wouldn't the god-player intervene to prevent atrocities and natural disasters?).

Dave Luckett said:

Chris Lawson said: ...Anyway, this is long-winded way of saying I think you've misread Dave's beliefs and intentions. Dave, please correct me if I'm wrong.

You're not wrong. I admit the accusation that I was indulging in apologetics. It's rather a mental hobby of mine.

I also would note that, when these calm and rational discussions of religion do occur here, the religious bigots like FL and IBIG invariably disappear.

Well, FL? Are tornadoes designed? Are snowflakes?

HOW CAN YOU TELL?

You can't tell, can you. You're just a sicko loony who cannot distinguish the real from the imaginary. You're a presumptuous,
over-inflated windbag who isn't even capable of defending his own bullshit.

You're a bull-goose loony, FL.

(Elzinga) Asserting that there is a “supernatural world” that interacts with the natural world defies rationality and logic. There is no known mechanism that explains the transmission of information and knowledge between two such realms because “supernatural” is defined in a way that is self-contradictory.

(Drews) If you are looking for evidence for God, the best place to go is the Christian Gospels.

Hey FL,

Prometheist says snowflakes are not designed. I demonstrated in these hallowed walls that my quartz crystal was designed. (At least it qualified for the 'design inference'. Did you see it?)

Can you help us out? Who's right and who's wrong? Not too shy to offer an opinion, are you?

N.O. (Need Opinion)

SWT said:

Kevin B said:

Even though I'm Christian, when I'm interpreting calorimetry results, I'm not doing "theistic thermodynamics." When I'm calculating chemical reaction rates, I'm not engaged in "theistic chemical reaction kinetics". Similarly, when I say that I accept modern evolutionary theory as the best available scientific explanation for the development of biological diversity, I am accepting the same theory that my non-theist co-commenters here accept, with the same caveats about provisional acceptance. My belief in God is irrelevant to my evaluation of the evidence for modern evolutionary theory in the same way it's irrelevant to my consideration of thermodynamics, chemistry, mechanics, and other areas of scientific inquiry. Tagging my position with the label "theistic" can be (and has been) interpreted to suggest otherwise.

You might have this backwards. "Theistic evolution" is a religious position rather than a scientific one. It is a position that allows (say) an Anglican to be comfortable with both evolution and the Nicene Creed at once. Young Earth Creationists might not have issues with chemical reaction kinetics, but radio-nuclide dating is another matter, it is not?

If "theistic evolution" were used only for a theological position, I would be less irritated. I have also encountered it as a description of a scientific position. (To be precise, it was used as a prelude to a misrepresentation of my scientific position in a real-life group discussion, by a signatory of the DI's "dissent from Darwinism" statement.)

Francis Collins dislikes the term "Theistic Evolution," too; that's why he coined "Biologos." Biologos has become the name of an organization rather than a theological position, though.

Dennis Venema (remember Dennis Venema?) has posted the second class in the series:

Evolution Basics: Evolution as a Scientific Theory

Since Venema's first post (the announcement) was on February 7 and this one is February 21, it looks like he's beginning a 2-week class cycle. Look at the bottom of each class for links to the previous and next sessions.