An argument for design, as compared to "evidence" for evolution

[Rusty]

In the NOVA episode, Judgment Day, there is a video clip that offers,
as evidence for evolution, the alleged transitional fossil of
Tiktaalik rosae. (you can watch the clip here -
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/rss/vodcast/redir/http://www-tc.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/rss/media/nova-v-20071109.m4v

Essentially, imo, this is nothing more than the homology argument.
I've written a blog post in which attempt to illustrate how the
evidence, as presented in the video clip, can be taken as evidence for
design. I do so by referring to the history of the internal combustion
engine. You can read my post here -
http://rustylopez.typepad.com/newcovenant/2008/02/science-satur-1.html

It is also my hope that the post I wrote can be applied as a lesson,
within the homeschool environment, in teaching how we can approach
data with particular worldviews.

Comments, advice, or suggestions?

Thanks,
Rusty

[Jennifer Vaughn]

Thanks for forwarding this clip.  I'm really impressed that they were able to figure out exactly where and "when" the "transitional form" would be located.  But, as you've pointed out in your blog post, there's nothing about "how to transition from breathing underwater to breathing on land."  That's similar to my father's complaint that there's so much focus on transition with respect to physical appearance rather than transition at the genetic level.  When the insides are examined, similar-looking animals often have closer "relatives" who look nothing like them.  And, if you think about it, transitioning to breathing in air rather than in water is a more life-threatening issue than being able to walk on land.  After all, the tree-climbing "walking fish" fish can survive quite nicely with fins but has a special respiratory system!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walking_fish

Getting to your lesson plan: I've always been weary of the Michael Behe-type argument for a number of reasons.  Directly relating to your post though, I'd mention that the naturalistic evolution of life forms and the evolution of man-made technology both assume improvement later on.  To me, that is inconsistent with the Christian God.  (This is one of the reasons why I'm not fond of Dick Fischer's argument in The Origins Solution.  It makes God out to be mistake prone!)  Why would God move from the simple to the complex?  It's not because the forms are biologically dependent on each other, correct?  It's not because He's improving on earlier prototypes, correct?

Jenny

[Rusty]

Jenny,

Thanks for the comments.

With regards to their prediction, yes, it was impressive in many ways.
Mostly, I think, their major premise is that animal forms move from
the simple to the complex - and that is what they look for. In whale
evolution, for example, they look for similar changes between fossils,
many times ignoring the other types of changes that must occur -
sometimes in a short period (geologically speaking). The clincher, it
seems, is whether or not the fossil has the template features that
match their paradigm (which, in my opinion, also lines up with a
design hypothesis).

As to my lesson plan, you are correct and astute in your observation
regarding the methods and motives for the God of the Bible. I've
addressed those concerns elsewhere but, based on your comments, I
should make sure to include them in such lesson plans. Being an
analogy, my comparison breaks down insomuch as human designers have
limited knowledge, whereas God does not. Hence, I am not positing that
life forms move from simple to complex because God is learning (as
humans do), but that they move from simple to complex because of the
environments they are designed for. I think I touch on that in my
post. Simple and complex are terms that can be conflated, by the way.
Even the early form of life, in the fish to land animal evolutionary
sequence, is a complex creature.

The point of the engine analogy is not so much that it moves from
simple to complex as that it moves from a few applications to many.
Keep in mind that even the early, simple engines were fit for purpose
(i.e., they were specific to their environment). The fact that the
basic template idea of the early engines is still applicable today
mirrors the fact that the basic template of fin structure is
applicable today. There is no improvement of the template, in the
sense of gaining new found knowledge, but a modification of the
template for use in new applications and environments. In that
context, it makes sense to not introduce a type of animal if the
environment it is designed for is not yet existing.

Essentially, I'm comparing the fact that template designs are
adaptable to multiple applications, over time, with the data we find
in the fossil record. I'm not comparing omnipotent capabilities with
human capabilities, nor am I attempting to fully discern designer
intentions (although I am attempting to employ the notion of design
parameters and prerequisites, and operating conditions).

Thanks again for the ideas you shared. I'm thinking of having my 12
year-old do this "lesson", and I'll make sure to clarify those points.

Rusty

On Feb 23, 1:01 pm, "Jennifer Vaughn" <g.byc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for forwarding this clip. I'm really impressed that they were able
> to figure out exactly where and "when" the "transitional form" would be
> located. But, as you've pointed out in your blog post, there's nothing
> about "how to transition from breathing underwater to breathing on land."
> That's similar to my father's complaint that there's so much focus on
> transition with respect to physical appearance rather than transition at the
> genetic level. When the insides are examined, similar-looking animals often
> have closer "relatives" who look nothing like them. And, if you think about
> it, transitioning to breathing in air rather than in water is a more
> life-threatening issue than being able to walk on land. After all, the
> tree-climbing "walking fish" fish can survive quite nicely with fins but has
> a special respiratory system!
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walking_fish
>
> Getting to your lesson plan: I've always been weary of the Michael Behe-type
> argument for a number of reasons. Directly relating to your post though,

> I'd mention that the naturalistic evolution of life forms *and* the

> evolution of man-made technology both assume improvement later on. To me,
> that is inconsistent with the Christian God. (This is one of the reasons

> why I'm not fond of Dick Fischer's argument in *The Origins Solution*. It

> makes God out to be mistake prone!) Why would God move from the simple to
> the complex? It's not because the forms are biologically dependent on each
> other, correct? It's not because He's improving on earlier prototypes,
> correct?
>
> Jenny
>

> On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 8:41 AM, Rusty <lopez.ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In the NOVA episode, Judgment Day, there is a video clip that offers,
> > as evidence for evolution, the alleged transitional fossil of
> > Tiktaalik rosae. (you can watch the clip here -
>

> >http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/rss/vodcast/redir/http://www-tc.pbs.org/...