t f p g+ YouTube icon

A Tale of Three Creationists, Part 2

Bookmark and Share

January 21, 2011 Tags: Lives of Faith
A Tale of Three Creationists, Part 2

Today's entry was written by Dennis Venema. You can read more about what we believe here.

In part one of this series, I introduced Todd Wood (pictured at right), a controversial Young Earth Creationist scholar and faculty member at Bryan College. In this post, I discuss some of Todd’s previous critiques of the Old Earth Creationist organization Reasons to Believe, and his recent blog series examining the exchange between myself and Fazale Rana.

Since his pivotal 2006 paper, Todd has continued to evaluate and respond to arguments against human common ancestry brought forth by other creationists. One group that is frequently the target of Todd’s criticism is the Old-Earth Creationist group Reasons to Believe, (RTB) a group that I have recently critiqued as well (see here and here). The striking genetic similarities between humans and chimpanzees presents a difficulty for the RTB view that humans were directly created by God apart from common ancestry with other species. One RTB rationalization for the evidence is that since humans and other life are formed from the dust of the ground in the Genesis narratives, such similarities are to be expected:

Genesis 2:7 describes the creation of Adam and states that God “formed the man from the dust of the ground.” The verb “formed” is translated from the original Hebrew verb yasar, which means “to form,” “to fashion,” or “to produce.” Genesis 2:19 uses yasar to describe God’s work to form “out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air.” Together, these verses indicate that both man and animals were fashioned by the Creator from the same substance. It follows, then, that anatomical, physiological, biochemical, and genetic similarities should exist between humans and other animals, including the “99% genetic similarity” between humans and chimpanzees.

While RTB views this as a reasonable line of argument, Todd does not. The fatal flaw, as both Todd and I see it, is that this rationalization does not explain the pattern of biological similarity we see in nature:

Being created by one God would be a good reason for some degree of similarity to exist. Likewise, being created to occupy the same world or to participate in the same ecosystem would also necessitate some biological similarity. These types of considerations could explain why all living things use the same basic biochemical building blocks (amino acids, nucleotides, etc.), for example.

What these considerations do not explain is the pattern of similarity. This is quite a different problem that is easy to confuse with the fact of similarity. What we're dealing with in creation is not just bare similarity or random similarity. There is a definite pattern, and it's a pattern that Darwin says is uniquely explained by the inference of common ancestry …

When are building materials sufficient to justify a conclusion that things built will be strongly similar in form? If I get two homework assignments that are identical word-for-word, I do not conclude that the similarity is inevitable given that they're both written in English.

In other words, RTB is content to present a weak argument they feel is theologically satisfying even if it fails to grapple with the compelling pattern that scientists observe throughout nature. Todd, however, isn’t having any of it. He would rather understand the pattern than find ways to explain it away.

Given my appreciation for Todd and his approach, I was pleased to discover Todd’s blog series examining my recent critiques (see here and here) of Reasons to Believe’s “Testable Creation Model”. I found several aspects of RTB’s response to be inadequate, as I will explain below. Still, when one is personally invested in a discussion it can be difficult to evaluate a rebuttal objectively. Far better to have another, more impartial individual look it over and offer their thoughts. Todd is an ideal candidate for this. He is eminently qualified to evaluate the science, he is familiar with the RTB literature, and, since he is a Young-Earth Creationist, he certainly cannot be accused of a pro-evolutionary bias.

Todd starts the series by explaining his motivations:

In my last post before Christmas, I indicated that I would be discussing Reasons to Believe in my next posts. Unfortunately, what started as a single response to some of Fuz Rana's recent assertions about the chimpanzee genome has turned into a long series of posts. Having written almost the entire series of posts already, I've become discouraged by the length and detail of my criticisms. I have even debated whether or not I should bother posting what I've written, since I'm sure it will be either ignored by RTB or misconstrued as personal attack or insult. Despite that, though, I do think I have a duty to the public and to the truth to set the record straight on a topic that I'm familiar with: comparative primate genomics.

In his first post, Todd addressed the accusation that my critique was merely an ad hominem attack on RTB. In my critique, I was careful not to accuse RTB of wrongdoing. That is certainly one possible explanation for the data I laid out in the original critique, but it is not the only explanation. My intent was to make the data accessible to non-specialists and allow them to see what a biologist sees when they look at the RTB model. So, I found this response from RTB to be somewhat puzzling. Todd’s evaluation was similar to mine:

In his first response to Venema's post, Rana wrote,

...instead of discussing the scientific weaknesses of our approach, Venema chose to launch an ad hominem attack against me and Hugh Ross, impugning our integrity as scientists and scholars.

I think that interpretation is pretty debatable. Venema raised some very important questions … about the way RTB has represented published research. He never accused anyone at RTB of any specific wrongdoing or incompetence. By dismissing these issues as just a personal "attack," I would say that Rana is far more guilty of argumentum ad hominem than Venema ever was.

An additional point is that critiquing a model for failing to adequately address the scientific literature is very much a scientific critique. If I submit a scientific paper for publication that makes claims clearly against the published literature, while simultaneously omitting any discussion of the relevant research, the reviewers would, without a doubt, reject my work. That’s not an ad hominem attack on their part, it’s pointing out a scientific weakness in my scholarship. The RTB model, as published in their major books, makes no mention of the key paper comparing the human and chimpanzee genomes. The most recent RTB book, More Than a Theory, even claims that a full-genome comparison has never been done. Moreover, no explanation or evidence is given to back up these assertions. Regardless of the reasons for these omissions, the fact remains that they are a serious scientific shortcoming for the RTB model.

Todd’s thorough analysis eventually spanned eight posts on his blog, and links to each post are provided below for those interested in the details. Having gone over RTB’s response with a fine-toothed comb, Todd offers some conclusions for RTB to consider:

Venema and I have documented a sad but consistent and ongoing pattern of erroneous summaries of published works on the part of RTB (Rana and Ross, but mostly Rana). There's really no way to deny these mistakes have been made or to explain them away, so what are you going to do about them? I recommend apologizing for the mistakes, correcting them if you can, and instituting some kind of serious fact-checking filter on everything you publish.

Todd goes on to challenge RTB to live up to their stated invitation for serious critique of their model:

Rana claimed that "We do invite serious critique of our model (both theological and scientific). We believe that critical evaluation of our ideas will only improve our case for biblical creation." Fine. Venema did that in his critique. You ignored a number of important points he raised and instead mischaracterized his critique as a personal attack, which it was not. I've also offered a serious critique in the fourth post of this series, where I tested Rana's hypothesis that the unaligned portions of the chimp genome are too different to align. Will you ignore that as well? If so, please stop saying that you "invite serious critique" of the RTB model.

I’m hopeful that RTB won’t ignore what Todd has to say. Todd’s blog might not get a huge amount of traffic, but he is an important voice in this discussion. Hopefully posting this here on Biologos will raise Todd’s visibility with those who need to hear what he has to say most: RTB supporters. Folks, when two Christian geneticists who hold radically different views of creation agree that the RTB model has serious scientific flaws, it’s time to ask hard questions.

Todd’s complete blog series can be found here (Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8)

Dennis Venema is professor of biology at Trinity Western University in Langley, British Columbia. He holds a B.Sc. (with Honors) from the University of British Columbia (1996), and received his Ph.D. from the University of British Columbia in 2003. His research is focused on the genetics of pattern formation and signaling using the common fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster as a model organism. Dennis is a gifted thinker and writer on matters of science and faith, but also an award-winning biology teacher—he won the 2008 College Biology Teaching Award from the National Association of Biology Teachers. He and his family enjoy numerous outdoor activities that the Canadian Pacific coast region has to offer. Dennis writes regularly for the BioLogos Forum about the biological evidence for evolution.

< Previous post in series Next post in series >

View the archived discussion of this post

This article is now closed for new comments. The archived comments are shown below.

Page 6 of 6   « 3 4 5 6
Rich - #50179

February 4th 2011


I admire your valiant efforts here, against a dialogue partner who regularly on this site accuses people who disagree with him of intellectual dishonesty, cowardice, mendacity and so on.

I particularly like this passage:

“you focus on the inaccuracies in my thinking,  perhaps with the goal of getting me to stop talking by shaming me over my lagoons of ignorance.”

This is often the tactic taken by neo-Darwinians, both atheist and TE, when criticizing ID writings.  Your interlocutor, elsewhere on this site, found (he alleges) two small technical errors in Stephen Meyer’s book.  When asked whether those errors were such as to invalidate the overall argument of the 500-page book, he remained silent.  It is the same with Behe’s books.  Someone will find some alleged error, declare that Behe cannot possibly be a good scientist, and then dismiss the entire book.  That’s like saying that evolution through natural selection is a worthless theory because Darwin made undergraduate errors regarding inheritance and made blunders in geology due to his ignorance of continental drift.  If a book by Pennock or Conway Morris contained more errors than Meyer’s, the neo-Darwinists here would never even mention them.

John - #50268

February 6th 2011

“Since I am not a science professional, it should not surprise you if my use of terms is inexact or my understanding of certain concepts needs to be refined.”

You are explicitly claiming to have a superior understanding of fundamental biology than science professionals.

“No one who is learning a subject understands it perfectly at first.”

So why not start learning with an open-minded examination of the evidence, not what people say about it?

“You seem to be assuming that, because I am skeptical of evolution,  my questions are dishonest, and that I have no sincere interest in understanding scientific concepts.”

I’m not making any assumptions. Your embracing of hearsay and avoidance of evidence shows that you have very little faith in your skepticism.

“I don’t see the relevance of pointing out that the metaphor of divergence breaks down when you ’zoom in’ on a population and focus on the individuals in that population (continued).”

Because your hypothesis predicts that there are landmark genetic events associated with speciation, yet you refuse to engage the evidence.

And you conflate metaphors with theories. How many tree branches become thicker the further they get from their source?

Page 6 of 6   « 3 4 5 6