A splendid video about evolution

I stumbled across this video exploring the evidence against the idea that we (and every other living thing) evolved by RM+NS:

Here is what I wrote in a comment on this YouTube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smTbYKJcnj8

I am not a Christian, but I really enjoyed this video!

I liked the experiment that demonstrated that e-coli could repair one point mutation in the gene for tryptophan after a large number of generations, but was totally stumped if two mutations needed fixing. This is exactly what one would expect from combinatoric considerations, and as Rob pointed out this illustrates exactly why NO genes could have evolved by natural selection!

I like to put it another way: As soon as the role of DNA/RNA in coding for proteins was discovered, it should have been obvious that Natural Selection was not an adequate explanation for any of the genes because a part-constructed gene has no advantage for the organism that contains it - indeed it is disadvantageous to the organism because it wastes its resources making junk!

I think all this is evidence that life has a non-material component - a spirit component if you life - but probably not a Christian spirit. Indeed I think multiple spirit-level creators makes more sense - think of the many predator-prey arms races - don't they make more sense if there are multiple designers at work?

Rob's video manages to get across the essence of the problem with RM+NS without getting into the complexities of DNA/RNA etc.

David

More about the video.

I got an email response from rob later the same day, saying that he was pleased we agreed on the science and wants to discuss my concept of spirit-level creators some more ):

I like anything that hammers across the message that DNA can't evolve by natural selection because there is no equivalent of the idea of incremental development.

Once I understood that, it sent a shiver down my spine —there really have to be entities that created life on earth (or conceivably somewhere else).

It is also obvious that many other people must have reached the same conclusion but kept quiet about it rather than rock the boat. I'll bet some or all of the "Third Way" crowd must know the truth.

David

I wrote back giving him a lot of details about paranormal research, and pointing out that NDE evidence did not support the idea that Yaweh did it (I didn't quite put it like that). So far I have not received a reply, but I suppose it is early days.

David

Well here is the letter that I wrote to Rob, but so far I have heard nothing more. It may be that Rob can't bear a discussion that questions Christianity in a sensible way

Thanks Rob for your quick reply!


I'll start with quick summary of how I reached my current view of things.

My parents brought me up as a Christian, but the church I went to didn't spend much time discussing awkward points of theology.
By the time I was a teenager, I was very interested in science and the idea of God was already beginning to seem a bit out of place. To be honest, I stayed in the church back then partly because they ran a youth club that seemed to attract some very nice girls of about my age!

I then went to Churchill College Cambridge, and a group of Christians that others referred to as the "God Squad" welcomed me into the college chapel congregation. All might have been well, except that they insisted on the doctrine that God could not forgive anyone's sins, but he could transfer them to Jesus - who therefore had to be executed. After many discussions I simply left the college Christians, but that set me thinking more broadly.

In particular, it seemed absurd and cruel that anyone who didn't get to Heaven ended up in Hell, being tortured for all eternity! I declared myself an atheist from then on.

Cambridge let science students select 4 subjects in their first year and then gradually narrow their studies down to their chosen subject (in my case chemistry) by year 3. I chose Chemistry, Physics, maths for Natural Sciences,
and Biology of Cells. Thus I was exposed to the modern theory of genetics.
I did a PhD in Chemistry that did not involve any biochemistry, but quite a lot of computer programming. Thus I became a software developer, but maintained a healthy interest in science.
I gradually became aware that there were a large number of supposed psychic phenomena, which were dismissed by people such as Richard Dawkins far too casually. These phenomena include:

Near Death experiences (NDEs)
Telepathy
Clairvoyance
Mediumship
Psychic phenomena induced by psychedelic drugs such as LSD.
Evidence for reincarnation
etc.

I also became aware of Rupert Sheldrake who was a Director of Studies in Biology, before he began exploring much more exotic ideas. He does not believe that biology can be reduced to chemistry and physics. One of many examples that he discusses is an experiment in which the lens of the eye of a newt embryo is removed but regrows. The remarkable thing is that it regrows by a totally different mechanism from that used the first
time round. He eventually came to the conclusion that living organisms have some sort of field around them that 'knows' the form of the organism as a whole. Thus when some part is damaged or removed, this field can sometimes direct processes that can repair the damage.

His books are well worth reading.

I see events such as the Cambrian Explosion as experiments by the designers of life - try a whole suite of ideas and see what works. A truly omniscient God would not need to try experiments. His work would also seem cruel and pointless - why create people whom he would to punish for ever because they became too interested in sex (say) - even though he had designed them that way!

I won't continue until I know how aware of the above, and how you see these phenomena blending into your Christian faith. Since I am 75, the question about what happens after death is important to me. I think it is highly probably that I will wake up from death in a spiritual realm that starts off something like NDEs typically do.

Best Wishes,
David

Well here is the letter that I wrote to Rob, but so far I have heard nothing more. It may be that Rob can't bear a discussion that questions Christianity in a sensible way

Did you ever have any strong experiences yourself David?

Did you ever have any strong experiences yourself David?

Strangely not really - though I did feel one of our cats sent a signal to us on the evening after he had to be put to sleep!

I just find the evidence that I outlined above, too overwhelming to be ignored - and of course, there is plenty more that I could have included. There could still be a reason for his delay, but maybe he thinks that by disproving RM+NS he has proved his particular version of Christianity!

David

I gently prodded the guy once more - and still nothing!

It is a shame because I think if more people realised that RM+NS is not a viable explanation for evolution, it might open up discussion more widely.

Could @stephenw somehow pull in someone from The Third Way to debate this thing?

David

Rob finally replied, but seemed to just flop back into the conclusion "Jesus/God did it". I don't think this conversation will continue further.

David

Rob finally replied, but seemed to just flop back into the conclusion "Jesus/God did it". I don't think this conversation will continue further.

David

I am definitely not a fan of "God did it" explanations but we should make distinctions between God as merely being a filler versus metaphysical demonstrations that argue for God having a proper role.

Admittedly IMO Intelligent Design, as the Catholic Theologian Feser points out, is of the God of the Gaps type explanations even if one concludes that some kind of Conscious Agent is needed for evolution.

I am definitely not a fan of "God did it" explanations but we should make distinctions between God as merely being a filler versus metaphysical demonstrations that argue for God having a proper role.

Admittedly IMO Intelligent Design, as the Catholic Theologian Feser points out, is of the God of the Gaps type explanations even if one concludes that some kind of Conscious Agent is needed for evolution.

We are talking about the evidence that the fact that life based on DNA cannot possibly evolve by RM+NS in a big way. I consider that to be a a FACT. Stadler and I agree completely about that, but I don't think you can jump from that to claim that anything like a Christian God was responsible. I could ask him for permission to repeat what he wrote, but my impression is that he wants to withdraw to his Christian bubble as fast as possible

This is definitely not a God of the gaps type of argument because the RM+NS argument seems/is the only argument that biology can propose for the existence of meaningful DNA strings. OK the Third Way folks may have an alternative, and I wish someone could get one of those guys to debate their alternative on this forum.However, actually I think they just want to get on exploring how evolution really works, and not bother with fundamental questions.

David