Comment on Dr. Geraty clarifies his “Challenge” to literal 6-day creationism by Sean Pitman.

@Geanna Dane:

We are arguing that the issue of speciation is important in your debate for several reasons. These could include the following.

(1) Speciation helps to illustrate the important difference between “microevolution” (change within a subspecies) and “macroevolution” (evolution of new species and changes at higher levels), a distinction that readers here clearly misunderstand.

Not true – at least not when it comes to the creationist definition of these words. Your definition of “species” and therefore “micro” vs. “macro” evolution is not necessarily based on qualitative functional differences. On the other hand, when creationists talk about micro vs. macro-evolution they are talking about degrees of qualitative functional differences.

This is why your discussion of “speciation” is completely irrelevant to this particular debate since it does not directly address the main point of contention – i.e., the origin of novel qualitative functional differences on higher levels of functional complexity equivalent to functionally “macro” evolutionary changes.

(2) It helps us understand the potential for evolutionary change. Remember, the designation of “species”, however arbitrary we admit it may be (though it is studied with increasing rigor), is but one level along a continuum that includes (top to bottom) kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species, subspecies. If we struggle to understand how 400 species of Plethodontid salamanders can evolve solely in North America in a mere 4000 years (roughly 1 new species every 10 years), then how rapidly can new genera evolve? How rapidly can new families evolve, including entire families of venomous animals? How rapidly can new orders evolve? And so forth. In many of these examples, qualitative functional differences truly do exist! For example, all representatives of the family Conidae (sea snails) use their venom to procure food and defend themselves. Other families lack this luxury.

You cannot know the answer to your question of minimum required evolutionary time to achieve various taxonimic classifications until you evaluate evolutionary progress based on function. Using your definitions of “species” which are not based on functionality, many species can be “evolved” within an extremely short period of time – even within a handful of generations. Hundreds and thousands of years are not needed because the overall mutation rates within all living things is so high.

However, when you start evaluating evolutionary progress based on qualitative functionality, even trillions of years are not enough time to realize qualitative functional differences that have minimum structural threshold requirements beyond 1000 specifically arranged amino acid residues. That’s the problem for the ToE…

(3) For those who enjoy arguing with evolutionists (yourself included), one needs to be prepared for ridicule when admitting that creationists believe in rates of evolutionary change–speciation being a good example–that far exceed what they believe. In grade school I was taught that evolution is so slow that we could never get from A to B and all the species we see today even if there were many billions of years to do so. I’ll bet others reading this were taught as much. And then when you and David Read and Bob Ryan admit that evolution had to have happened very rapidly immediately after the flood, the honesty and integrity of creationists becomes an issue, as does the quality of education in our schools.

The problem, yet again, is over different definitions of “evolution”. Not all change over time is Darwinian. Many dramatic morphologic changes over time are Mendelian and such changes can be achieved very very rapidly and result in what mainstream scientists define as different “species” groups for various subjective reasons.

So, when you use the word “evolution” you need to qualify what type of “change over time” you’re talking about. Are you talking about functional change or cryptic non-functional changes? If you are talking about the latter, then that kind of “evolution” is not a problem for creationists. It can be achieved very very rapidly. If, on the other hand, you are talking about functional changes such as a lizard evolving into a bird, you are talking about very high level functional genetic changes that could not be achieved by RM/NS in trillions of years of time – if you actually sit down and do some statistical analysis of the non-beneficial gap distances that would have to be crossed.

Again, you lump all forms of “change over time” under the same word “evolution” when creationists distinguish between different types of “evolution” based on functionality as “micro” and “macro” evolutionary changes. You need to be talking about the same thing when you are in discussions like this or else your arguments are simply going to be taken as completely irrelevant since you aren’t talking about the real problem given your definitions of the words you use.

(4) For those of us who wish to be honest in how we deal with the data, we need to recognize that we creationists have some genuine difficulties. Evolving new salamanders at the rate of 1 per decade is a real dilemma, particularly when we consider that the mean generation time (years before offspring begin to breed) for most Plethodontids is typically 5-10 years. Do you not see a problem here?

I don’t see a problem at all because the definition of new “species” of salamanders is not based on qualitative functional differences within the various gene pools. Geographic isolation as well as other forms of breeding isolation can be achieved very very rapidly. Given such rapid isolation of breeding groups, novel phylogenetic features can also be achieved just as rapidly because of the high mutation rate from generation to generation.

Is it okay to continue believing, as I do, when the science does not match up with what we think the Bible tells us? Some who learn that there are real problems are quick to give up on their faith. If so, then I would argue their faith was based on the wrong thing and I bet most readers would agree with me.

I would argue that useful faith that is distinguishable from a belief in garden fairies or the Flying Spaghetti Monster is based largely if not entirely on the credibility of the witness or witnesses which form the basis of faith. The reason why I believe the Bible to be a true revelation of God is because I have found it to be reliable in those things that I can directly test with regard to its claims of physical reality. If these claims start to be falsified, one by one, then the metaphysical claims of the Bible will loose credibility in my mind as well.

I do not take much stock, as some people do, in blind faith or faith that is based on a strong internal “feeling of truth”. For me a useful faith that has the power to give a solid hope in the future must be based on credible evidence that is open to testing and potential falsification – i.e., “science”.

(5) For the Adventist biology faculty and students like me who have gained some insight into these difficulties, discussing them in a public forum like this is fraught with risk. Neither Professor Kent nor I for example, have in any way advocated for “reptiles to birds” or “amoeba to man” evolution (although others have tried to paint us as such). We have patiently tried to point out problem areas for which tolerance and understanding are needed. And look at the abuse and criticism we have taken! I think the reason Adventist biology faculty choose to remain silent is because they know they cannot win with those who refuse to try and understand. They will be villainized. I certainly haven’t won! Most of you continue to revile me.

I apologize for many of the over-the-top statements of some in this forum. These do not reflect my views or attitudes, but have been allowed to post anyway, to at least some degree, because of our effort to have this forum be as open as possible while still trying to enforce a certain degree of congeniality.

It is fine to question and pose potential problems. In fact, such a thing is or at least should be welcome in our schools. However, if a teacher comes to a point where he or she sees the problems as so clearly against the fundamental pillars of the SDA faith that he/she cannot in good conscience continue to support said pillars in an active manner, that teacher must resign and go teach elsewhere where he/she can teach in good conscience what seems to be right to him/her.

As an aside here, yet again, I personally find your arguments mostly irrelevant because you are not discussing the basic point of disagreement between creationists and evolutionists – a point of disagreement based on the origin of high-level qualitative functional differences within gene pools…

You say that you don’t believe in something like reptile to bird evolution yet you don’t say why. Why if you believe in evolutionary speciation on at least some level don’t you believe in reptile to bird evolution? Do you have any idea or scientific reason or explanation? Or, do you simply believe that this sort of evolution doesn’t happen because of your blind faith in the Bible? – as Prof. Kent has admitted?

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

Sean Pitman Also Commented

Recent Comments by Sean Pitman