[_ Old Earth _] Professor John Lennox Demolishes Evolution

[Asyncritus]

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1966 April; 55(4): 727–733.
PMCID: PMC224220
Spontaneous origin of an incipient species in the Drosophila paulistorum complex.
T Dobzhansky and O Pavlovsky



World English Dictionary
incipient (ɪnˈsɪpɪənt)

— adj
just starting to be or happen; beginning

It means Dobzhansky was lucky enough to be watching precisely when the new species emerged. That doesn't happen very often.

Heh heh heh!

You've fiddled it again. Think we wouldn't notice?

Your words: 'when the new species emerged' PAST TENSE.

The real meaning of incipient:

Just STARTING to happen.

In other words, it hadn't happened yet.

And in any case. 'that doesn't happen very often' completely finishes your case for how the Cambrian explosion came about.

Want to change your nonsense stories?

Or going to go down with them?

 

[Asyncritus]

Now about your claim that Professor Lennox believes in Darwinian evolution. Thought I wouldn't check? I wrote to him, and received this reply, which shows conclusively that you have either quotemined, misrepresented, misunderstood or wilfully sought to deceive us or yourself.

This is from Simon Wenham, his personal assistant who speaks for him on the matter:

[FONT=&quot]I wonder if it comes down to definitions. John Lennox would certainly not question that certain species evolve according to conditions – this is fairly obvious when we look at the breeding of dogs for example.

[I personally accept the truth of that statement - this is micro-evolution, and normal variation within species limits]

However, he does not accept the Neo-Darwinian model as an explanation for how humankind came into existence.

As you say, he picks up this theme in God’s Undertaker. He does take a nuanced line on this and it’s quite common for people to misunderstand his position, so it doesn’t surprise me that this is what some people think about him, as we’ve had people contacting us criticising for all kinds of positions which he doesn’t take.

Obviously there are Christians who do accept the Darwinian model, but John Lennox is one who has said there are problems with it.

[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]So I hope that clears it up somewhat![/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Thanks again,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Simon Wenham[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]Now... you were going to withdraw your claim, weren't you?
[/FONT]

 

[Barbarian]

I wonder if it comes down to definitions. John Lennox would certainly not question that certain species evolve according to conditions – this is fairly obvious when we look at the breeding of dogs for example.


This is why it's not good for mathematicians to try to do science. Dogs are not several species.

However, he does not accept the Neo-Darwinian model as an explanation for how humankind came into existence.

Neither do I. Mankind's origin is in the gift of an immortal soul directly by God, not our biological evolution.

As you say, he picks up this theme in God’s Undertaker. He does take a nuanced line on this and it’s quite common for people to misunderstand his position, so it doesn’t surprise me that this is what some people think about him, as we’ve had people contacting us criticising for all kinds of positions which he doesn’t take.

And yet, in the video, he says he accepts evolution as Darwin did. I'm wondering if he just doesn't know what Darwin thought. Or perhaps he's confused by Darwin's attribution of the origin of life to God.

Obviously there are Christians who do accept the Darwinian model, but John Lennox is one who has said there are problems with it.

There are entire journals dedicated to problems in chemistry, physics, mathematics, and yes, evolution.

That's kind of a dodge creationists use when they get cornered.

 

[lordkalvan]

Now about your claim that Professor Lennox believes in Darwinian evolution. Thought I wouldn't check? I wrote to him, and received this reply, which shows conclusively that you have either quotemined, misrepresented, misunderstood or wilfully sought to deceive us or yourself.

This is from Simon Wenham, his personal assistant who speaks for him on the matter:

[FONT=&quot]I wonder if it comes down to definitions. John Lennox would certainly not question that certain species evolve according to conditions – this is fairly obvious when we look at the breeding of dogs for example.

[I personally accept the truth of that statement - this is micro-evolution, and normal variation within species limits]

However, he does not accept the Neo-Darwinian model as an explanation for how humankind came into existence.

As you say, he picks up this theme in God’s Undertaker. He does take a nuanced line on this and it’s quite common for people to misunderstand his position, so it doesn’t surprise me that this is what some people think about him, as we’ve had people contacting us criticising for all kinds of positions which he doesn’t take.

Obviously there are Christians who do accept the Darwinian model, but John Lennox is one who has said there are problems with it.

[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]So I hope that clears it up somewhat![/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Thanks again,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Simon Wenham[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]Now... you were going to withdraw your claim, weren't you?
[/FONT]

Let's take the content of your post at face-value: Lennox - or Wenham on his behalf - is doing what you accuse Dawkins of doing, i.e. 'back-pedalling furiously' from an admission that he has made publicly that appears to damage his position. There is no doubt that Lennox made this claim and that this supposed 'reversal' on his behalf from Wenham is at best a vague fudge: 'certain species evolve according to conditions', whatever this means. I also note the qualification that 'he does not accept the Neo-Darwinian model as an explanation for how humankind came into existence', which rather implies that he might accept it for other species. Wenham's reply seems to dodge more questions than it answers.

This view seems to be supported by an interview with John Lennox in 'The Christian Post', reported at http://thinkingmatters.org.nz/2011/...hn-lennox-on-creation-science-and-scripture/:

In presenting his own view of Genesis, Lennox believes “that the beginning of Genesis 1:1 did not necessarily take place in day one as is frequently assumed. The initial creation took place before day 1.†On such an interpretation, he believes there is much greater scope for the place of science in uncovering explanations for how the earth and the universe came to be.

Lennox, however, does not see any room for human evolution in the Biblical account:

“Genesis seems to go out of its way to imply a direct special creation [to make man], rather than suggesting that humans arose, either by natural processes or…out of preexisting hominids.â€

In terms of withdrawing claims, however, perhaps you would like to withdraw the claims you made on the back of Lennox's argument that Dawkins' 'weasel' model is an evolutionary one rather than one addressing the powers of cumulative probability? Care to do that?

 

[Asyncritus]

I wonder if it comes down to definitions. John Lennox would certainly not question that certain species evolve according to conditions – this is fairly obvious when we look at the breeding of dogs for example.

This is why it's not good for mathematicians to try to do science. Dogs are not several species.

It's worse news when people like you try to do English. Is it your native language or a second language?

Didn't you see the 'for example' at the end of the sentence? That means that dogs are being used as an example of a species which 'evolve under certain conditions'. Many dog varieties have been bred, and that is an example of 'evolution' - but not the kind of evolution which produces new phyla from old ones. That is 'micro-evolution' as I described it.

You're on to another loser here.

Neither do I. Mankind's origin is in the gift of an immortal soul directly by God, not our biological evolution.

Wrong again. Man does not have an immortal soul, as many passages in the Bible testify.

And yet, in the video, he says he accepts evolution as Darwin did. I'm wondering if he just doesn't know what Darwin thought. Or perhaps he's confused by Darwin's attribution of the origin of life to God.

I think he looked at the micro-evolution of the finches, pigeons, cattle, horses, that Darwin cited, and saw that it does happen, and I agree that it does. It's the rest of the extrapolation that I deny, and I think he does as well.

There are entire journals dedicated to problems in [...] evolution.

That's the biggest and thickest one of all, is it?

That's kind of a dodge creationists use when they get cornered.

It's your neck on the block now, I'm afraid, and we can all see it, even if you can't.

 

[Asyncritus]

[...] There is no doubt that Lennox made this claim and that this supposed 'reversal' on his behalf from Wenham is at best a vague fudge: 'certain species evolve according to conditions', whatever this means.

See my previous post to Barbarian where this matter is elucidated perfectly clearly.

I also note the qualification that 'he does not accept the Neo-Darwinian model as an explanation for how humankind came into existence', which rather implies that he might accept it for other species. Wenham's reply seems to dodge more questions than it answers.

Hardly.

The evolution of mankind is a huge linchpin in Darwin's theorising: and if someone rejects it, then the evolutionary theorising is gone as well.

Incidentally, are you aware that Darwin questioned his own theorising on the grounds that if we are descended from the apes/chimps/whatever, then the products of our minds may be as dependable as the products of the minds of apes/chimps/whatever.

What do you say to that?

In presenting his own view of Genesis, Lennox believes “that the beginning of Genesis 1:1 did not necessarily take place in day one as is frequently assumed. The initial creation took place before day 1.†On such an interpretation, he believes there is much greater scope for the place of science in uncovering explanations for how the earth and the universe came to be.

I think he's right, but that does not permit an evolutionary fantasy.

Lennox, however, does not see any room for human evolution in the Biblical account:

He's absolutely correct, and Barbarian seems to think so as well.

“Genesis seems to go out of its way to imply a direct special creation [to make man], rather than suggesting that humans arose, either by natural processes or…out of preexisting hominids.â€

Right again.

BTW, I missed your explanation of the origin of the sexes. Care to comment?

In terms of withdrawing claims, however, perhaps you would like to withdraw the claims you made on the back of Lennox's argument that Dawkins' 'weasel' model is an evolutionary one rather than one addressing the powers of cumulative probability? Care to do that?

If Dawkins was not using the weasel model to model evolution, then perhaps you could tell us what he was trying to do? He is no mathematician, and could not have been lecturing on conditional probability, as you call it.

 

[lordkalvan]

See my previous post to Barbarian where this matter is elucidated perfectly clearly.

'Elucidated' in what sense? Do you mean in the narrow sense of supporting your own assertions?

Hardly.

Unfortunately, neither Lennox's quotation from 'The Christian Post' nor Wenham's specificity support your assertion that this is not the case.

The evolution of mankind is a huge linchpin in Darwin's theorising: and if someone rejects it, then the evolutionary theorising is gone as well.

Well, it is not clear that this is the case in regard to Lennox.

Incidentally, are you aware that Darwin questioned his own theorising on the grounds that if we are descended from the apes/chimps/whatever, then the products of our minds may be as dependable as the products of the minds of apes/chimps/whatever.

Perhaps you can reference this claim and explain exactly what you think Darwin meant?

What do you say to that?

I say that your point is obscure and needs elaboration.

I think he's right, but that does not permit an evolutionary fantasy.

As you have failed to establish that there is anything 'fantastical' about evolutionary theory or that Lennox rejects it wholesale, what you think he's right about appears moot.

He's absolutely correct, and Barbarian seems to think so as well.

And I think he's wrong, so touché.

Right again.

Or wrong.

BTW, I missed your explanation of the origin of the sexes. Care to comment?

Which explanation is that that you were expecting to not miss and how is it relevant to the point at hand?

If Dawkins was not using the weasel model to model evolution, then perhaps you could tell us what he was trying to do? He is no mathematician, and could not have been lecturing on conditional probability, as you call it.

This is borderline disingenuousness. Go back and read the quotations from Watchmaker carefully (they've been referenced twice in posts that have been made in reply to your arguments) and tell us what you think Dawkins is claiming he was modelling, or perhaps you'd rather avoid the issue entirely?

ETA When I wrote cumulative probability I should have written cumulative selection. My bad.
And not 'conditional' in either case.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian chuckles:
It's worse news when people like you try to do English. Is it your native language or a second language?

Async tries again:

Didn't you see the 'for example' at the end of the sentence? That means that dogs are being used as an example of a species which 'evolve under certain conditions'.

He got that wrong, of course. Varieties of dogs aren't speciations.

You're on to another loser here.

Everyone here is on to you, Async.

Barbarian observes:
Neither do I. Mankind's origin is in the gift of an immortal soul directly by God, not our biological evolution.

Wrong again. Man does not have an immortal soul, as many passages in the Bible testify.

Christians think we do.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1075.htm

Barbarian chuckles:
And yet, in the video, he says he accepts evolution as Darwin did. I'm wondering if he just doesn't know what Darwin thought. Or perhaps he's confused by Darwin's attribution of the origin of life to God.

I think he looked at the micro-evolution of the finches, pigeons, cattle, horses, that Darwin cited, and saw that it does happen, and I agree that it does.

He said he saw it as Darwin did. Darwin saw common descent. Now, I will grant you that Lennox is a mathematician, not a biologist, and he may simply have no idea what Darwinism is. But he clearly says he agrees with Darwin on evolution.

(Async is shocked to learn that all sciences have unresolved problems.

Barbarian explains:
There are entire journals dedicated to problems in physics, chemistry, geology, ... and yes, evolution.

That's the biggest and thickest one of all, is it?

You might want to go check and see how many journals there are for each science. Might be a revelation for you.

Barbarian chuckles:
That's kind of a dodge creationists use when they get cornered.

It's your neck on the block now, I'm afraid, and we can all see it, even if you can't.

Custer to Crazy Horse:
"You ready to surrender yet?" :D