Byblos wrote:It says as much about a 'creator god' as the god of the gaps argument says about a creator god.
Yes, "God of the gaps". The irony is, it's kind of what many scientific articles and studies discussing evolution do anyway. I think it makes their explanations more easy to swallow, where they're otherwise scratching their heads and have no evidence as to how something they're trying to explain naturally happened. There seems to be somewhat of an governing Aristotelian telos that pervades thought amongst evolutionary scientists.
What do I mean? Let me quote a few passages, but examples as I'm sure we're all aware, are rife whether in articles, journals, scientists talking or nature documentaries on evolution:
- It was really shocking to find these genes are only read for a pulse of a few hours in our entire lifetime. … They are found on chromosome 19, known to be an unstable part of our genome. Think of it as a bubbling cauldron of DNA, with individual bits of DNA being added and taken away, occasionally forming whole new genes. At the dawn of placental mammals, 70 million years ago, these genes emerged and were grabbed by evolution to perform a new task, acting to control what cells do in the earliest stages of development. (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 114347.htm)
- A small number of lineage-specific tandem gene duplications have occurred, and these raise questions concerning how evolutionarily young homeobox genes are recruited to new regulatory roles. For example, divergent tandem duplicates of the Hox3 gene have been recruited for extra-embryonic membrane specification and patterning in dipteran and lepidopteran insects, a large expansion of the Rhox homeobox gene family is deployed in reproductive tissues of mouse, and duplicates of TALE class genes are expressed in early development of molluscs. (http://bmcbiol.biomedcentral.com/articl ... 016-0267-0)
- We’ve known for decades that evolution needs to tinker with genetic elements so they can accumulate mutations while minimising disruption to the fitness of a species. … As a result, they become less harmful and gradually start escaping the repressive force. Eventually, some of them take on an important function and became indispensable pieces of human genes. To put it another way, the balanced forces buy the time needed for mutations to make beneficial changes, rather than disruptive ones, to a species. And this is why evolution proceeds in such small steps – it only works if the two forces remain balanced by complementary mutations, which takes time. Eventually, important new molecular functions can emerge from randomness. (http://www.realclearscience.com/article ... 10151.html)
You know, I've been accused of believing in a "tinkering God", and while I'm not phased and don't see it as such, it seems any real "tinkering" can only ever have intelligence; or "recruiting" genes to serve some purpose, such as the "extra-embryonic membrane specification and patterning"; or "adding" and "taking" away from individual bits of DNA (my position of "Progressive Creation" to a 'T') to form new genes for some new task in a new species.
So "God of the gaps"? I don't believe it takes much of a leap to connect the dots, really... provided one comes to the table philosophically neutral. The other crazy option is to continue using language with infinitive verbs to explain evolutionary science, but then oddly conclude "and so natural evolution perfectly explains [...]."
Byblos wrote:From simple to complex is a fact, not only in recent biological evolutionary processes (and yes, they are considered recent in the grand scheme of things) ...
One fact that just isn't true, or scientifically supported today. My opening post I believe showed that with strong evidence contradicting such a fact. Hugh himself doesn't appear to dismiss either, even if he is still comfortable with evolution as neatly explaining such findings.